The firearms registry - Part 4

Thomas Walkom changes his mind:

A gun-toting gun registry skeptic recants

And let's hope that this baiting topic is laid to rest.

This is the continuation of Part III.

I flagged this as "offensive". Hopefully threads will not be closed here just because of retorts like these.

George, the RCMP report is 168 pages long. Have you read it? Any comments? What about Walkom's article? No?

I commented on Walkom's piece a thread or two back...and that is what I mean in hoping it is "laid to rest".  It's only provocation.

Ok, I didn't realize Walkom's piece had been linked to before, George. I apologize. But you could still remain civil.

Sorry U, but the mood is "pissed off", with civility only a distant, blurred target in this age of mindless, neo-con ascendancy.

The Cons need to be grilled about why they withheld this report from the public for as long as possible.

Charlie Angus has a short editorial in the Star today:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/856684--ndp-building-brid...

I immediatly sent him an email, copied to Layton, telling him I totally agree that both side have valid issues, and that bridges need to be built NOW, but then  basically asking how letting the registry die is "building bridges", let along doing so "NOW".. I also gave him my opinion on how to be seen to be SERIOUSLY attempting to build the bridges he speaks of.

On a different matter, I see that a thread was opened, and shortly there after closed, where some people took offence to a comment I made in regards to some "YELLING" from another poster .... I just want to apologize, without excuse, to the poster it was in responce to, and anyone else that was offended by the negative connection it seemed to imply towards some anti-register supporters .. it was not meant int hat way, but I can certainly see why it could be preceived as such, and people were justified in taking offence ... again, apoligies.

You may have missed the fact that Charlie is now voting against the Conservative bill.

No, I was aware, and I commented upon that in my letter and praised him for his willingness to move on the issue in the face of obvious CPC wedge issue politics.

I ws harder on Layton (whom I copied) stating that if the NDP were to allow the registry to fail without a SERIOUS attempt made to save it (not just the lip service that Jack has provided so far) that I would work hard next election in my riding (Layton's) to send the NDP a clear message that urban progressive votes can not be taken for granted.

"Progressive" has become such a meaningless term.

Well, call it  whatever you want then,  but urban voters who voted for the NDP are vastly supportive of the registry. I think for the most part we (urban progressives, for lack of a better term) have no problem accepting that the registry has flaws that should be addressed, but we are not going to be fooled by a little bit of "lip service" being paid to our concerns while the NDP unconditionally surrenders the registry to the Cons ... what exactly do you expect of us?

Unforunately, your 'flaws that should be addressed'... the addressed part of that does not exist.

The Conservatives are completely uninterested in negotiating a new regime. They are equally happy with either an outright win or outright "loss". "Heads you lose. Tails we win." Literally.

The reality is, the NDP chooses to whip the caucus into supporting the registry as is, or not. The same as no supporters of the registry is satisfied with the reasons the NDP gives for leaving it a free vote and just trying to get a compromise.... implacable opponents of the registry [who, it is worth noting, are actually not directly present in this discussion here] would even more so see a whipping of the caucus that apparently helped save the registry as what the NDP is really about.

Correct, the Conservatives aren't interested, and at this point the NDP (or at least 11 MPs and Jack Layton, which are the NDP as far as this issues is concerned) don't seem to be serious or interested about addressing it either.

Yes, but in the choice of whipping the vote there are more than one permutation of how they go about it:

1) Whip the vote and the MPs go along with no question.

2) Whip the vote and the MPs refuse.

3) Whip the vote and offer the Cons to immediately work with them to fix the flaws in a new bill.

I'm suggesting that option 3 has the chance, slim as it is, to address the flaws and make both sides if not 'happy', then at least feeling like at the NDP tried to address their concerns ... and even if this option fails and the Cons refuse to go along at least with this option the NDP can honestly tell the rural progressives that with this deeply divided issues among NDP supporters, they had no choice but to take the only available option open to them that at least made the attempt to address both sides of the debate.

Are a large number (or any for that matter) of the 'implacable opponents' NDP supporters?

Is the policy of the NDP more likely to be to 'kill the registry the first chance it gets', or 'fix the flaws that rural progressive see in it'?

Would these 'implacable opponents' see an attempt by the NDP to fix the flaws, rather than killing the registry the first chance they get, as being the NDP abandoning their policies and principles?

For you personally, If the Layton did whip the vote with an offer to the cons to immediately cooperate with them on fixing the flaws and the cons refused and the registry remained, would you consider that the NDP abandoning party principles and policies? Would you then vote for the conservatives in the next election?

One of the really unfortunate things about this debate is the tendency to stereotype rural voters. Certainly, it is true that rural people are less likely to support the registry than urban people but let us not lose track of the hundreds of thousands of rural supporters the registry has. Some rural MPs need to stand up for them -- I think northern New Democrat MPs looking for cover on this vote would do well to engage more with the registry's rural supporters and the victims of long gun accidents and crime all through rural Canada.

Living part-time in the hamlet of Wycliffe in the East Kootenays as a child, I grew up in a household that supported stricter gun control than the reigstry offers and did so stridently and publicly. My father had plenty of friends who joined him in calling for draconian restrictions on long guns for a whole variety of reasons. New Democrats would do well to find and magnify voices like these during this fraught period.

1. Why would an "implacable opponent of the registry" ever vote for a party whose leader, and a majority of whose MPs, are on record supporting the registry?

2. Why should the NDP care about any [fictional] Canadian who cares more about eliminating the registry than anything else in life (because that's the only sense in which I can understand "implacable")?

Perhaps some Canadians are able to see through the Conservative ploy while others believe they cannot. The political outcome will be decided by the number of Canadians who have read about the Conservatives' methods and find them repugnant in their divisiveness...and the number who play out the Conservatives' divisive game.

"Tendencies" and "less likely" is all any of us here in this discussion have talked about 'what rural people think'. Its an attribution, and only an attribution, that we talk as if all rural people think alike. In fact, those of us who are rural folk, who are the bulk of the 'objectors' here, almost universally when we give our personal experience make it quite clear that we are not some hive-think.... that in fact, everyone or virtually everyone has said that they personally have some kind of mixed opinion about the registry and certainly dont see it as some kind of defining issue.

Talk about stereotyping- it does not matter how many six ways to Sunday we say that, people keep comeing back to "you know, rural people dont think the same."

Is that so? Thanks, I never thought of that.

Go back to what I said, anywhwere, and find where I said or implied that there are people who care about eliminating the registry than anything else in life. So yes, we agree this straw person construct of yours is fictional.

Point # 1 does not have any straw persons or attributions of what I said in it. But I did already give an answer to that. And since you clearly aren't paying attention to what I actually say, why should I repeat myself.

I notice you have this habit, when dealing with my posts, of reading until you find something you can attack, implying that is all I've said and then refusing to engage the substance of my post. It makes you a tiresome interlocutor.

I can start playing this proof-texting game with your posts too. It's pretty easy to imply someone is taking a position that is empty and useless if you want to excerpt generic truisms and ignore the substantive points they introduce.

Try practicing what you preach, man.

Stuart_Parker, thanks for post #16. I really do wish we could discuss this stuff, and not take turns lobbing insults at each other, and reading insults into statements where none exist. With some practice, I think we could get the hang of it.

I have a habit of breaking posts and only dealing with a part, at least at first. I do try to deal with the whole thing. And I dont think I cherry pick for whats easy to attack.

This particular post of yours I didnt do that thing of breaking it into pieces that I can deal with one at a time [and then relating them]. The main part of your post to me is what I took objection to, the rest to me is neither objectionable or of any larger substance.

I wouldnt be surprised at all if I dont practice what I preach. In fact I've always expected its true. But so far what happens is that I make specific objections to things people say, and I get just generic replies that I'm no better. I'm more than ready to look at that, but I need something specific.

As to the "you arent paying attention to what I say".... I'll readily admitt that could be said by anybody anytime, and now that I think of it, probably is a statement that in practical terms cant be meaningful.

But, I said it to a specific person. And I doubt that I have ever said it to you. I'm specifically ticked off at something you said to me. And yes, I can see how it all appears to run together. But I do make an attempt to be specific. Turning back on me is legitimate and to be expected when I'm in people's face. But in doing that I dont see anyone else even trying to be specific at all.

Tell me:

I said that a number of people here either opposed to the registry or fence sitting [or in favour but expressing strong dislike of the wedge politics done from both sides], have given their complex views about the registry. I would have that that gives more than enough time for people to realise that none of us think rural people are some kind of have mentality on this issue. Do you think we have? Of course in an extensive, long lasting, and repetitive discussion. people are going to very often and even usually say "rural people" this and "rural/urban" divide. But did we really give you reason to think we thought about it in such black and white terms? Did the discussions of the dived way WE feel about it personally not give you any idea at all?

Same question I asked Stuart at the end. The central part of that post you are referring to Stuart bemaons the stereotyping of rural people. Do you really think we've done that? [And like I said, making allowances for the inevitable thing in such a LONG and very repetitive discussion that people will tend to speak in short hand of "rural people this", etc. That said....]

ETA: Having people say that you have been stereotyping rural people, when you think you and others have gone to lengths saying the opposite, comes across as insulting. Possibly, its more understandable than would be readily apparent how you would get that impression of stereotyping. But at a minimum: "insulting" is not just in using words that are obviously insulting.

A purely personal comment:

I think a contributing factor in my attracting more reaction versus, say BA. Is that BA and others talk primarily about the facts. They inform people about things people didnt know. Thats more easily appreciated.

I go after what the differences are. And I dont do that just attacking what I dont like. I also point out things that arent easy for 'my side' in this discussion. Like the trust issue I pointed to in the thread in the FF.

Thats bound to get more heat.

If you look at what I go after, its virtually all about positions being attributed to people distoring what they actually said. That can only muddy the waters. Because its not just about this discussion. In fact, its mostly not about this discussion.

The attribution of positions to people absolutely drives me up a wall. I cant be here and not bring it up whan it happens. And its inevitable that some of the time I'm going to be reading it in. I apologize for that, but not for its inevitability. I did try saying nothing about it for an awful long time, or only in seperate discussions- which amounts in practice to saying nothing.

I'm sure my attacking what I percieve to be attributions of positions muddies the waters about what is being said specifically about this issue at hand.

I am strongly opposed to the gun registry.  Punish those who misuse firearms, leave everyone else alone.  What's next, a knife registry?

That makes a lot of sense. Take revenge for past violence, but don't worry about the future. There's a lot to be said for that.

That's an excellent idea too. Anyone caught failing to register their firearms should be required to register their knives as well. Thanks, junebug.

Is Jim Maloway of Elmwood-Transcona concerned about voting to keep the gun registry?  The Cons finished a strong 2nd there in 2008, so I'm wondering if the Cons plan to target Maloway on this issue.

Its hard to say whether it is more politically expedient to support or oppose the gun registry in a totally urban riding like Elmwood-Transcona but that has a lot of blue collar "hunting and fishing types" in it. Its probably a wash. I think that if Maloway opposes the registry its probably totally his personal view since its very unclear where his riding would stand on the issue.

It's ok to stereotype the working class, isn't it? It's just a total mystery why these blue collar hunting and fishing types belong to unions (like the Teamsters and the CAW, to pick two that have lots of members in Transcona) which are lobbying to keep the registry, isn't it?

Would Teamster and CAWs "fishin' n huntin'" membership be riled by their unions' political lobby in favour of the registry, U? Would they make it an issue?  Seriously? 

Could we move this to Labour and Consumption please? Or do unions also have to eat shit because they don't buy into Stephen Harper and the gun lobby?

That was an honest question.  Try for an honest answer, rather than more reactive hyperbole.

AS a result of nauseating, demeaning posts like this - I've gone from being mildly supportive of the gun registry to now feeling "schadenfreude" at the thought of the registry being scrapped and seeing you get upset over it.

Maybe, but then one would have to wonder about Trinity—Spadina where the Libs finished a strong 2nd ... Would Olivia lose support because the NDP were seen as not standing up for the registyr?

Same for Outremont and  Vancouver-Kingsway where the Libs also showed a strong second ... and what about urban ridings where the NDP showed a strong second tp the Libs  (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, , Parkdale—High Park  Beaches-East York for example) Would they forfiet all chances they had of possibly taking advntage of the mess that is the Liberal leadership?

Agreed. And there are several more such seats, as well as the whole prospect of long-term growth in Quebec that Jack has done so much for. He is the most popular leader there.

But look at the other NDP MPs with Tories barking at their heels:

Sault Ste. Marie. But Tony is not for bending.

Edmonton-Strathcona. Linda Duncan is not wavering.

Burnaby-Douglas. Bill Siksay is firm.

Nanaimo-Cowichan. Jean Crowder is firm.

British Columbia Southern Interior. Alex is not wavering.

Maloway's position cries out for a whip.

It's not about revenge, it's about punishing the offenders.  The idea that a gun registry will somehow curb future offenders is the same logic that argues it's useful to engage in pre-emptive war.

Yeah, just like laws against homicide doesn't stop future murderers, and speed limits don't stop future speeders  .... matter of fact when I come to think about it, laws don't stop future law breakers either.

And OMG, I just realized eating doesn't stop future hunger ... what kind of incredible government conspiracy have you uncovered here junebug?

The trivializing of peoples positions by taking them to logical extremes is a common and nasty little game played around here.

Its a fact that there is an at best uncertain relationship between laws, policing of them, and deterrence. How much relationship there is depends very much on the issue.

Obviously you mean like how the position that the registry doesn't stop crime, or comparing it to a "knife registry" and "preemptive war" trivializes the pro-registry position! .... you need to be more specific there KenS, for a second I though your comment was directed at me.

Valid point. Slightly.

In my books, "what next, a knife registry?" is an easily ignored toss-off. I dont call people on toss-offs.... noting that they are such only if I'm responding to them. Which there is a practical need for because you are actually responding to the serious side you know is behind the toss-off.... the toss-off itself isnt worth responding to, and it may be misleading if you respond only to it.

You were doing merely a toss-off. More like a grinding dig.

Yes, but I did treat the "knife registry" comment as a toss-off ... I was responding to the supposed "valid" point that the registry doesn't curb future offenders.

Does the SIN curb future tax cheats? Not directly, but it is a tool that is used to help identify and track them down. Same logic apples for the firearm registry. So trying to frame  the SIN as a failed crime prevention law because some people work without SINS, or have SINS and don't report work, would be a false argument ... just like the false argument that the registry is all about determing firearm crime .... it's oe of the tools that crime investigators an use, but it ws never meant as the be-all-and-end-all of crime prevention, no law or registration system ever is.

That is a counter argument.

But its not what you did in post#39, which is a blatant trivialization of someone else's argument.

Mind you, its not only a flawed conter argument, but one that attributes positions people have not taken. The bar is not that the registry is expected to be a 'be all and end all' that does everything.... and anything less, we ditch it.

The bar is evidence it does something about prevention.

I dont doubt the police that the registry helps in policing. But all that says is that it makes their work easier. That is sufficient reason for them. But it says nothing about whether prevention is better.

Its not registering handguns that made them much less a problem than they are in the US, its severely restricting ownership of them. So we have to either have a discussion about severely restricting the ownership of long guns, or a discussion about whether registration of them can be a tool in bringing down their misuse.

We didnt have that discussion. We got the registry as a fait accompli, and then a discussion about whether it is accomplishing anything. And we're being asked to deferr to keeping the registry, on the expectation that eventually there will be evidence of actual results that it is doing something.

No, #39 was a counter-argument to the argument junebug made, not the argument that you think junebug should have been made.

I see you've  made your own comments as well, and when I have a few minutes I will respond to your comments addressing the comments you made, and not the comments junebug made .... are you starting to get how this works now?

No, but maybe it doesnt matter.

Its probably worth noting that I am not saying its unlikely that there is or will be evidence that its a reasonable to expect that the registry will lead to better prevention. Something more than the wishes and 'should be's that we get a steady diet of.

And when it comes down to it, if I had to vote in the House, I'd have to do some more thinking before I'd decide how I would vote- more thinking based on what I've seen already, not what is to come.

Like others here- some of whom support keeping the registry despite its warts- what I object to is treating the anti-registry position as if self-evidently unreasonable or unprincipled.

Another NDP MP Glenn Thibeault of Sudbury who supported the PMB in February is following Charlie Angus and will oppose the Hoeppner bill:

"Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault today announced his support for Jack Layton’s plan to find a compromise on the gun registry that brings rural and urban communities together.“I went to Ottawa to work to make our community safer and stronger—not to drive it apart,” said Thibeault.  “That’s why I will be standing with Jack Layton, not Stephen Harper and Garry Breitkreuz, on the long gun registry.  We need to find a solution that brings rural and urban Canadians together and so far Jack Layton is the only one showing the leadership to do just that.”… Thibeault had previously voted to send Bill C-391 to committee for a proper study and to learn more about the issue. Since then, countless conversations with experts and local constituents have convinced him that the Conservative position would be a step back for public safety, and that a new way forward was needed.

Nice!

It may turn out that Jacks approach was the best for getting everyone in and around the NDP not what they wanted, but what they needed. Given such a divide on the issue, getting people "only" what they need is no mean feet.

What was needed: that the registry is still intact [albeit on life support]; and that could happen while the dissenting NDPs who also have a lot of NDP policy, precedent, and broad membership to stand on, could vote against the registry if the felt that they needed to, for whatever combination of reasons that was.

If it does turn out that way, the result was not guaranteed, so Jack was taking a chance. But a big part of why Jack stuck to doing it the way he chose is probably that he thought in the end he could get enough of the dissenting MPs to change.

If Jack succeeds in convincing enough of the 12 NDP MPs to switch sides so that the PMB fails on Sept. 22 - it will CRUSHING news for the Liberals who are praying that the gun registry gets scrapped so they can try to use it as a "wedge issue" against the NDP.

Imagine the wonderful optics - Jack gets his caucus to come around to his position by using persuasive arguments - while Ignatieff has to coerce his people to vote against their will.

I think that last point is inside baseball stuff. Few will notice that difference and care.

It will make a difference for NDP candidates in places like Saskatchewan who can make the argument that the NDP allowed a free vote and allows a diversity of views on the gun registry - whyile the Liberals just force all their people from rural areas to "put up or shut up".

On the Saskatchewan front, is there any plan for us to not be completely crazy and negligent during redistribution this time? It would sure be nice to have three Regina city ridings and three Saskatoon city ridings instead of the radial segment lunacy that has rendered us unable to translate our safe provincial representation into federal representation. And makes supporting rural firearm use a precondition to representing the students and faculty at the University of Saskatchewan.

I realize it's an off-topic question but some party investment in coordinating representations to the boundaries commission is probably the single most important thing anyone can do to revive the party there. When I first rejoined the NDP in BC in 2001, I was stunned to discover that the office normally didn't hire staff to develop redistribution plans and coordinate local activists to get out and support them -- my previous party, the Greens, poured hugely disproportionate resources into the project. But I was able to talk the party into hiring me to do this work and we got a few improvements to the boundaries due to a concerted push. The Tories will be on this problem like white on rice but the rest of the parties really tend to drop the ball on this one, leaving districting positions to be crafted by sitting MPs.

I'm also betting that the Tories will have some tricks up their sleeves when it comes to appointing districting panels.

Two points in response to Stuart:

1. The configuration of riding boundaries in Saskatchewan has nothing to do with the NDP's position on the issue. The Saskatchewan NDP as a whole is 100% opposed to the gun registry and that goes for MLAs in totally urban seats as well as rural. You don't have to live on a farm to be against the LGR - in places like Regina and Saskatoon you have a ton of people who own guns and go to the country all the time to hunt etc... Quite frankly, a riding like Palliser is already about 80% urban the NDP already gets so little support in the rural 20% of the seat that the gun registry is hardly a factor.

2. I hope and trust that the NDP will lobby to get rid of the "rurban" seats in Saskatchewan - but one way or the other - because over the last ten years there has been a lot of population growth in Regina and Saskatoon while the rural areas are still losing people - so even if they tried to keep the ridings more or less the same as now - in order to keep the population of the Saskatchewan federal ridings about equal - the "noose" around the cities will have to be tied tighter and you will see more and more of the rural areas lopped off those rurban seats.

I've only just been able to read the RCMP report (and only a cursory read at that), and the discussion has moved on.  But this seems relevant to me as I'm trying to figure out what the registry does that licensing does not:

So, as I understand it, under the old FAC or the current PAL, checks are only done at the time of issuing and renewal (every 5 years?).  The registry allows for licenses to be evaluated and possibly revoked at any time based upon relevant information - e.g. a restraining order is issued.

This reads to me that under FAC/PAL there was no mechanism to seize firearms, or no way to easily know that firearms are present.  Is this correct?

So, again, in my understanding, this acknowledges that the registry isn't necessarily going to help "catch criminals," but it may help prevent violent acts from previously non-violent people.

Organized participation in boundaries commission hearings does sometimes get you what you want, especially during the phase between map #1 and map #2. In both the Greens and NDP I've coordinated and organized both party and "community" submissions to the commissions that have introduced ideas that the commissioners have ended up using and successfully organized against bad boundary lines that were proposed in the first draft and dropped in the second. Other parties put resources into getting their members to show up for commission hearings and sing from the same songbook; New Democrats would be better off if we did this more frequently.

I'm not saying we will be the most powerful force in the hearings but if you do a haphazard job of making representations to the commission, you're more likely to be playing defense instead of setting the agenda and less likely to get what you want.

Nystrom's support of keeping his boundaries once he got a rurban seat ultimately led to him losing the seat. Why can't pollsters and hacks in head office focus as much attention on controlling MPs' messages to the boundaries commission as they do controlling their message to the public? It would produce a higher rate of return on time invested.

This is heartening as is Charlie Angus' position.

I am still waiting to hear from Niki Ashton and Jim Maloway. (I have already given up on hearing from any of the Winnipeg Conservative MPs I wrote to because all of them seem perpetually whipped by Harper.)

I am sorry I missed posting in the FF thread because I definitely felt ignored or dismissed for the most part when I posted in previous gun registry threads. It felt like the fact that so many women's groups were supportive of the registry in principal didn't count because they were somehow emotionally invested in something that didn't work or were misguided in thinking that they were saving lives and/or reducing domestic violence. At the same time, pointing to police and emergency workers support for the registry was painted as siding with an authoritarian enemy of the people.

As for comments related to the fortunes or misfortunes of what decision MPs take on the upcoming vote, they kind of smack of political opportunism and give the impression that women's rights are hardly relevant to making a decision. As a woman that is a real piss off no matter which party does it.

On a final note, I find it interesting that Harper chose a woman to champion this backdoor piece of government legislation.

I think the Conservatives may be losing some NDP MP's on this issue because they have been overplaying their hand lately.  I think the NDP MP's are getting ticked off that Conservative MP's keep going into NDP ridings and attacking the NDP MP's.

Meanwhile the Liberals are apparently spending all their time attacking NDP MPs who are unswervingly in favour of KEEPING the gun registry - while doing nothing to try to influence MPs who are actually potential vote switchers. I wonder what that's all about??

I just don't understand...if the Liberals actually want to "save the registry" why are they spending 100% of their time attacking people who are already on their side and preaching to the converted? Are they afraid that Olivia Chow might suddenly buckle to the gun enthusiasts in her riding and end up voting to scrap the registry???

Seriously, if the Liberals had the SLIGHTEST interest in saving the gun registry - they would be telling their people to pressure MPs like Nikki Ashton and John Rafferty and Bruce Hyer and Peter Stoffer - not wasting time going after people who are already on their side.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09/liberals-target-ndp-in...

Stockholm, I think you know what the Liberal strategy is.  They are targeting the NDP as a whole - they are arguing that the entire NDP party should be supporting the gun registry and that by not doing so, they are abandoning public safety, women and victims of gun violence.  The Liberals will be hoping that pro-registry voters who are trying to decide between voting for the NDP or the Liberals in the next election choose the Liberals.

So, in other words, the Liberals don't actually care about saving the gun registry (if they did they would be pressuring NDP Mps who have voted to scrap it in the past and they would pressure Tory MPs from Quebec and from urban ridings). In fact they hope the registry dies so that they have a new talking point to use in two or three Liberal/NDP inner city competitive seats.

All's fair in love, war and politics - but let's be frank - the Liberal party doesn't give a damn about the gun registry - they just think (wrongly IMHO) that they can use it as a frivolous issue against the NDP.

I notice no words of support from the Liberals to NDP Mps like Charlie Angus and Glenn Thibeault who have switched sides. They must be scared shitless that more NDP MPs will switch sides and the gun registry will live on and the Liberals will lose their talking points. Be careful about wishing for something - it might happen!!

I like where the NDP are moving now much better than I did yesterday, but as far as I personally am concerned the test will be what happens come the 22nd.

If Jack can get his MPs lined up to vote against the bill without the whip, then I'll give him tons of credit, maybe even forgive him one or two of his previous sins ( maybe I'll give him a break on not disowning Bev right away , and for preventing Montreuil from running in Quebec.)

But, there is still a long way to go before that happens. This better not be some ploy to get a few MPs back on side, but still leave enough off-side to defeat the bill, then try and make some half baked claim that "I really tried" .... nope, at this point I don't have a lot of trust in Jack. He's shown himself to be totally capable of putting politics ahead of what he says he believes, in favour of pure politics (aka having Libby apologize for speaking the truth.)

What I do see though is a possibility that as more and more MPs decide that a fixed registry is better for thei NDPs  future than a fallen registry, that it will be easier and easier to call for a whip ... it was 1/3 of the NDP MPs, and Jack may have felt a big threat to his leadership with that many MPs against him ... now he's down nearer to 1/4, which may strengthen his spine a bit. Maybe if two more MPs come on side and the count is closer to 1/5 of the MPs, Jack will have the courage to stand by his convictions rather than allow the Cons to manipulated him using a combination of abuse of some NDP PMB tradition and wedge issues politics.

Of course the Liberals are playing politics - they haven't been doing a good enough job of it over the past year, and that's why they were so far behind.  They're finally beginning to be calculating again.  I think the Liberals care about saving the registry since it was a piece of Liberal legislation and it is part of their legacy, but it is also true that they would like to benefit politically from the upcoming vote.

The NDP doesn't appear to care as much about the registry as it should either, otherwise it would be whipping the vote.  And the Conservatives clearly are very hypocritical on the whole issue of public safety and law and order concerning the registry.

What would be the point of reversing himself and whipping the vote after enough MPs have already switched sides so that it no longer makes a difference to the outcome?

One of the issues to bear in mind here is that it isn't just Jack Layton and a few renegade MPs - you also have the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan AND Manitoba who have opposition to the gun registry as officail policy! The Manitoba NDP government has refused to implement the gun registry from the get-go - so its not just about disciplining a few MPs its about risking a rupture with engtire provincial chapters.

Ahh, the Liberals and their total lack of any principles whatsoever... something all lefties can come together and agree upon.

The NDP does not get the right to speak for all "lefties".  No one party has the right to be arrogant enough to assume that it is the only progressive party out there - whether it is the NDP or the Liberals.

And I would like to know what NDP supporters think of the NDP's blatantly opportunistic positions on Quebec over the past few years.  The NDP under Layton and Mulcair has become the only federalist party to vote for more language laws in Quebec, as well as supporting a disproportionate number of seats for Quebec in the next re-distribution of the House of Commons.  These measures have been taken solely so that the NDP can try to appeal to BQ voters at any cost.

If enough MPs did? No reson at all to whip the vote ... if they were still one or two short of the magic number then the whip would still be necessary.

Jack doesn't have to force the provincial NDP to do anything .... any province is free to opt out of implimentation and leave it to the Feds ... that's how it works now as a matter of fact ... it's about 50/50 or 60/40 on provincial implimentation and provinces that opted out and left it to the feds.

Does that mean the Liberals now support reducing Quebec's seat proportion?? I haven't heard Ignatieff demand that as he campaigns across Quebec. I wonder why?

Absolutely.

The Ignatieff Liberals have merely adopted Harper's scurrilous political strategy.

No doubt they are praying that it sufficiently disguises their near-perpetual support for Harper's nation-diminishing approach to governing Canada.

You didn't answer my question about the NDP's Quebec policy, Stockholm.  Why has the NDP adopted the policies it has with regard to Quebec?

The Conservatives and the Liberals are saying that Quebec's seats should remain proportional to its population, but the NDP isn't.  Does this mean the NDP is prepared to explain to voters outside Quebec, particularly those in British Columbia and Ontario, that it supports those provinces having a smaller proportion in the House than they are entitled to?

Would it not risk a nothern-southwestern/more urban Ontario split as well?

Layton has been the only leader that shows promise in this. 

I was chatting up the guy I buy my lamb from on the weekend.  I remember him having a 'Remember Bill C-42" or whatever it was my memory gets foggy with age.  Anyway it was an Anglers and Hunters sign that showed up, and still shows up during elections in rural Ontario.  I was curious to see what he made of all of this.  He was pissed off that the Conservatives had not just made this a government bill, as well the Liberal actions (and this guy voted for Liberal Paul Steckle in the past) really stuck in his craw as being undemocratic.  He had kinds words to say about Jack Layton.  What if the NDP MPs decide on their own to vote against the bill I asked.  He seemed to think that would be okay because at least it was their decision. 

Would that matter in an election?  Hard to know and it is hardly scientific.  I expect though that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have really over-played their hands and for the average middle voter that can see both sides (and I expect that is more than 80% of voters depending on the area) Layton has played this just about right.  That might not be the comfortable way to go, and it won't ever please the most ardent anti and pro registry supporters but it might be the best over the long term.

C-68

That's it!  Thanks- like I said memory gets foggier the older I get.

"Why has the NDP adopted the policies it has with regard to Quebec?"

Because, the NDP has ALWAYS been very supportive of Quebec's aspirations and need to protect its language and culture and has always been supportive of asymetric federalism and of Quebec's unique status within Canada. I always thought the Liberals claimed to have the same attitude since they supposedly supported Meech lake and they supposedly want to get votes in francophone Quebec.

"Would it not risk a northern-southwestern/more urban Ontario split as well?"

It could - but the difference that northern Ontario is not a separate province with its own provincial NDP government that has an official policy against the gun registry.

Absolutely agree.

Maybe Stockholm, but the disrespect on display towards rural NDPers and supporters who in good faith question the policy effectiveness of the registry can't sit well.  I have to think by not looking at the big picture (and lumping in rural progressives with right-wing idealogues)as a number of the registry supporters have done, is going to make for some pretty sore feelings and feelings of being irrelevant to many urban NDPers- and it isn't like that isn't a problem already.  It would be a shame to see those people walk away in frustration after being told they support violence against women, don't care about gun crime and are just a bunch of gun nuts a half step away from violence when what they are saying is in reality much different than the Conservatives and their supporters.  You have to wonder how many times rural NDPers are going to put up with being respectful of the concerns of their urban counterparts - just to have disrespect, or ignorance flung back at them.  I can think of at least 4 top of mind issues like that in Ontario already.

The Liberals support those objectives, but neither they nor the Conservatives support increasing the scope of Bill 101 the way the NDP does, or supporting disproportionate representation in the House of Commons that denies all other provinces the ability to be fairly represented.

Do you acknowledge that the reason Layton and Mulcair have taken these positions is because they want to appeal to BQ voters and because they hope voters outside of Quebec won't notice?

And, how does the NDP plan to explain to western voters that it supports the western provinces having a lesser share of seats in the House than they are entitled to?  I know someone on the Conservative campaign in Edmonton-Strathcona who plans to use this against NDP MP Linda Duncan in the next election by pointing out that she supports preferential representation for Quebec and reducing the west's voting power.

Right now Manitoba. Saskatchewan and PEI have VASTLY disproportionate numbers of seats in parliament. If we had true Rep-by pop, PEI would have one seat, and manitoba and Saskatchewan would have 7 or 8 seats each instead of 14. The Tory plan would actually give Quebec a proportion of seats that is LOWER than its share of the national popular vote - I think we should all oppose that.

I believe that Mulcair supports a bill that passed the Quebec National Assembly UNANIMOUSLY that would protect the right of Quebecers to work in French in areas under federal jurisdiction. Its not clear to me what position the Liberals have taken on that since the last i heard they still hope to win some seats in Quebec as well.

Thanks, Ripple.

I'll post if I get a reply from Ashton or Maloway so you can factor that into your projections of what will happen on September 22nd. Other than that, I'm outta here.

Agree with that agreement!

Excellent post Life, I could not agree more.

I agree with that, too, though feel that the disrespect (at least on babble) has come from both sides. I feel we get carried away with our rhetoric and forget to bother to listen to each other. Most unfortunate.

Question:

Why are people against a gun registry? And how does a registry stop them from getting one?

It would seem that way, but I don't think that the revocation process necessarily has to fall under the registration part of the system, although it may be that the registration office is currently handling that responsibility and if the registration office goes, so goes the revocation process unless it is recreated as a new department (limiting any saving gained by eliminating the registry and the system in place to handle both functions.)

I'd have to double check this, but this is my understanding of how it works at present.

Correct, you can have a FAC/PAL without actually owning a firearm, or you could own dozens, that was the main purpose of the registry, to account for the firearms purchased, gifted, traded, to you as a PAL holder.

Sort of ... the registry can help catch criminals, just not necessarily the criminals that some people like to put all the focus on (ie: someone steals my poorly stored firearm and commits a crime with it and the weapons is recovered. While it is entirely possible that the person who committed the armed crime may not be caught with information from the registry, I as the person who may well have been criminally negligent by not taking the legally required measures to safely store my firearms would be caught.

There are lots of permutations of how the registry might help catch criminals of various types, and there are lots of permutations of how the registry will fail to catch criminals of certain types ... that's a "flaw" in a lot of systems designed to prevent crimes or catch criminals

There are lots of pieces to this, laws, regulations, registries, enforcement arms, inspectors, etc.

Maybe relating it to the Social Insurance Number and the tax department might clarify the process and use (or it may just "muddify" the waters.)

Think of the SIN as having a license to work in Canada, just as the FAC is a license to own a firearm in Canada.

While the firearm example we have a separately named thing called a registry that registers every firearm your PAL legally allows you to own -- with the SIN, every job you "own" is "registered" back to you through that SIN ... you don't need to carry around a registry paper per say to prove your SIN is registered to that job, but come tax time that connection is reviewed and you are responsible to accounting for all the money from the jobs registered to you through your SIN.

So, like the SIN, the PAL/registry requirements helps the authorities keep the connection straight as to how many jobs/firearms you need to account for come tax/inspection time. Sure, having the SIN (license to legally work, and all your jobs "registered" to that SIN) doesn't prevent you from working "underground", or even working without a SIN, but I doubt there are more than a very few fringe people who would argue that since the SIN doesn't prevent all underground jobs that the SIN should be abolished, or that "criminals don't use SINs" would be a valid argument against SINs, or that requiring workers to have SINs stigmatizes legitimate tax paying workers as potential criminals, or that SINs don't do anything to help prevent tax cheats, nor would you hear an argument about the urban/rural split no matter which group it turned out did the most "unregistered underground" work.

This story must be aggravating for Harper's supporters in the Liberal caucus.

From that story:

So, the Caucus has found a way to respectfully disagree with one another on the merits of the issue, and to continue listening to arguments from each other.  It would be nice if that approach were adopted other places as well (like certain Babble threads, for example). :-)

It's the results of the vote on the 22nd that counts ... that's nice, they can all save or destroy the firearm registry with a big friendly smile, but how friendly they are is hardly the issue that will determine my support.

I can certainly take their example though if they allow the registry to fall, and politely smile while tearing up their campaign literature and telling them Layton and the NDP have lost my support.

Edited to add a big smiley face which seems to be all that really counts these days with the NDP loyalists.

By my reckoning, you have already announced on about six previous occasions and for six other reasons that the NDP had lost your support. I guess i will take your word for it that you ever supported the NDP in the first place. I'm not sure why we should concern ourselves with people who are non-NDPers reannouncing and re-reannouncing and re-re-reannouncing they don't supporty the NDP.

Yep, just reafirming that they are not doing anything to win back my support ... maybe though I can be pushed to go further and some day soon announce my intentions to actively support a candidate running against Layton, since obviously for the most "loyal" of NDP members the goal is to not listen to criticisms of the party and dear leader anyway.

Duplicate post.

One stick in the eye....

I hear two sticks in your eye.

No, that's 2.50 sticks in your eye.

Three anyone? Do I hear three sticks in your eye?

Anyone? Anyone?

I'm fascinated by the situational love affair with free votes all of a sudden, so I thought I'd do a search and see what some of our posters have had to say on the issue at other times:

I never remembered our party's theory of democracy intersecting with the idea that divisive debates on issues of national importance should be solved by free votes. It is on these issues that solidarity is most important not least.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a private members bill on a policy and fundamental rights like same sex marriage and abortion rights for women is just taking up bandwidth or playing games IMO.  There is no rights issue involved in the gun registery.  Lots of issues around public saftey that are convincing from both sides, but a right- not.  So free votes on one and free votes on the other are entirely different kettles of fish.

Then what about Harpers Omnibus bill that got Siksay disciplined for defying the whip? What was the "right" that was involved in that whip?

What kind of time did you have to put into digging up those quotes?

As to whether the context of comparison is fair or appropriate at all:

I personally never even referred to the free vote business on this issue. And my quote you used would be from some general discussion about having free votes all the time on everything. That is a totally different context.

And for that matter, the issues of free votes ARE situational to the core. [And for what its worth, I'm on record numerous times as having said I think party discipline should be lighter in practice, as in the UK.]

ETA: Let alone I unlikely ever mentioned the free votes, or likely Remind either [which would account for 3 out of 4 of your "proofs" of "situational principles"]....

No one here ever made pride of place of the thing about free votes. Its clearly at most a secondary point. So its trivializing people's arguments to treat minor points as if they are cerntral. There are some individuals who are so out there and over the top in their arguments, that any kind of answer directed at that person is to be expected. But there is so excuse for trivializing or ridiculing everyone who takes a particular position.

And No Yards you missed LTU's point, it was about what there might be free votes on. That there would never be a free vote on rights issue, does not mean that on policy issues there is always going to be a free vote. A pretty easy distinction to pick up, if you are trying.

There arent many free votes period. They might happen, as in this case, when the Caucus is deeply divided: that either way you go there are not going to be just the run of mill one or two that are ticked off. Instead, a few that after all the discussion and Leader telling them how they should vote and why, still feel it should not be rammed down their throats. Thats when you might have a free vote. Its simply not going to happen over an issue like abortion, and everyone knows it.

I was ticked off enough at Stuart's off the wall trivialization that I missed there was a substantive point tacked onto the bottom.

But before that, and maybe this is dumb because there is no good trivialization, but I cant even see why Remind's quotes are in there... and I only have to do less guessing about Stock's, but I'm not at all sure of the chain of logic.

Anyway....

Then you are either not paying attention, or just conveniently stacking the point. When you say "party's theory of democracy" what do you mean. Does the theory not include- focus on- the practice over time of when free votes are used?

They would only come up on issues that are divisive. Anything that is divisive is going to be an issue of "national importance". People dont deeply entrench themselves in positions over issues of secondary importance.

Nor I, and I have reported it for the personal attack that it is.

also continued over here