Gun-registry continued

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think it's unfortunate that this issue's use as a political weapon means that politicians are probably looking more at the polls (or in some cases a flipped coin, I'm sure) than the actual thing they are voting on.

Unfortunately your point here is not exclusive to the registry but across almost every issue being debated in politics today. It is difficult to find anyone willing to look at the actual issues beyond the required position they need to take and this is true of all parties now but I beleive the fault of one. The Conservative party's legacy to date may be more in the polarization and raising partisanship from an ever-present consideration to the exclusive consideration behind every move. The cons have learned to sow and harvest division in other parties as a matter of political tactics rather than accident. The damage to responsible government here is very deep.

AntiSpin

Fidel wrote:

And there are cops who will tell us that a lot more is needed than just a gun registry. Poverty and violence are related issues. It seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse as usual. They like their computers and high tech if it means increasing their control over the public. But computers and high tech should not be used to make it harder for rich people to export truck loads of untaxed corporate profits out of the country to financial brothels in far away places. I'd like to tell them where they can put their high tech policing equipment, and they wouldn't appreciate it very much at all.

 

I agree.....the Registry is a tool and nothing more. It doesn't - and cannot - save lifes or even make a decent cup of coffee (or green tea or whatever).  All it can do is provide information to police and state agencies about which Canadians own what guns at a given point in time (notwithstanding accuracy). How the police act based on that information is another thing entirely.

I have no problem keeping the Registry but the penalties associated with not registering or failing to update information should be decriminalized.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Frankly, I'd trust any report that concludes that more restrictions on firearms are better than less.

That's the flip side of your ad hominem argument. Sound good?

Why not let's read the report and make up our own minds, irrespective of who wrote it?

If Mr. Harper, the champion of freedom, ever lets it get published, that is.

 

Credibility being what it is I'd trust anything this government wants to hide as at least being worth seeing.

Sean in Ottawa

I find many of the posts in this thread are quite thoughtful. while I am a strong supporter of the registry for a number of reasons the points being made are well worth paying attention to -- in particular contributions from Thorin Bane and Fidel here have been well worth reading even if one is not inclined to agree with their conclusions. -- you don't have to be on the same side to see merit.

AntiSpin

Proponents of the Registry frequently quote that police make 11,000 inquiries a day to the Registry but this fact is never placed in any context.

According to StatsCan, there are approximately 67,000 police officers in Canada. (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal05a-eng.htm).

If we assume that 10% of police are on active duty at any given time, then the number of inquiries per active police officer per day is 1.64.

If we also assume that the 6700 active police interact with at least 15 people per day, then the percentage of Registry inquiries to total police/public interactions is 11%.To put this another way, the police would access the Registry for approximately one in ten Canadians they interact with.

AntiSpin

Chris Selley of the NP has an interesting perspective on the LGR debate...yes, it's the NP but it's still an interesting perspective, juxtaposing those supporting the LGR and the police with police actions during the G8/G20, among other things...

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/27/chris-selley-trust-the-ev...

AntiSpin

Caissa wrote:

The federal Opposition Liberals are demanding the Conservative government release an RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long-gun registry that concludes the program is cost effective, efficient and an important tool for law enforcement.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/26/rcmp-gun-registry-report-liberals.html#ixzz0xjhFg2dQ

Given recent RCMP cover ups, from its pension transactions to Ian Bush to Robert Dziekanski to the force's involvement in dubious studies regarding Insite, why would anyone trust any report from the RCMP?

 

6079_Smith_W

I have actually made these points already, and held back from jumping in again, but the notion of an organization like the RCMP having access to this information touches back on my concerns about the registry.

Again, I say this as someone who supports the registry, and if I thought the questions about addiction, depression, financial status and other things actually accomplished anything I would support them. I don't think they do, because lay people are not qualified to answer some of those questions about themselves, and most would just lie. As I said, I think it is pop psychology, and something that would be seen by many people as invasive.

Personally (and again, I say this as a supporter of the registry) I decided to not fill out the form on principle, even though I have nothing personal to reveal in those questions. It is unreliable information that people are supposed to fill out on a form that might have criminal consequences for lying, and it is also highly-revealing personal information that could easily wind up in the hands of a local RCMP officer or judge. That may not seem so bad in a large town or city, but in a rural area where most people know their local cops I am less inclined to trust peoples' discretion and good will (especially some of the cops most of us have met).

And I don't assume that this is information that would just stay at the registry head office. What is the point in having that information if it is not to be used by investigating officers?

Nobody has to answer questions like that to register anything else. They would be illegal for anyone to ask in a job interview, and I cannot imagine why the people who drew up the form thought they might be appropriate or professional in the first place.

(edit)

I think it weakens the registry because it provides bad information, and only serves to rile up opponents.

But I don't want to re-open that debate, because we have been through it before. I just want to again shed a bit of light on the fact that not all people who question the registry are brainwashed conspiracy theorists and red rose teapartiers,

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Debater wrote:

I don't understand why people object to registering their guns.  Why is this even an issue?  People have to register all sorts of other things.  What's so difficult about filling out a form?

It's not as if people are being asked to give up their guns or as if there is a ban on hunting.

 

Actually, Debator, it's because they've been told that registration is merely the prelude to confiscation.  And the stupid comments of some registry fetishists like Wendy Cukier have the unfortunate effect of making those right wing falsehoods seem quite credible.

That leaves aside the question of whether the registry is effective public policy as compared, not to an imagined dystopia with no gun control at all, but to the status quo ante, where we regulated firearms owners instead of the firearms themselves.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

trippie wrote:

I heard on the CBC the other day that the number of long guns used in crimes is 70%. The source was a police study or report of some kind.

 

I'm still having a hard time understnading what the big deal is about having a gun. They are made for one one thing, killing.

 

What's so hard about regisering it anyways? What's the big deal?

 

I've used guns before and killed animals. But as a young boy I quickly realizes that having a gun and using it was anti-thesis to my nature.

 

Ya, there is a thrill shooting one and hitting targets. But what is that thrill really? Is it a sick sense of life, a warper outlook?

 

Why have a gun if you don' t need to hunt to live?

 

What a few guys out in the wilderness is reason to through out all forms of control?

 

This sort of BS only gives the far right credibility when they say that registration is the first step to confiscation.

Farmers use long guns as a tool to deal with predators.  Aboriginal people (and some recreational hunters) use long guns as a tool as well.  And some people do target shooting for fun.  None of those purposes is illegitimate simply because it offends your delicate sensibilities.  White shoes after Labour Day offend my sensibilities.  Should we ban them too?

But you wrap it up nicely with a viscious slander.

Let me explain a simple fact to you trippie.  Just because someone disagrees with the registry, it does not follow that they are opposed to "all forms of control."  But that handy lie for registry supporters, but it's a lie nonetheless.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fidel wrote:

The car registry thing is typically used by people who are on the side of gun control but it is never adhered to. The provincial motor vehicle acts are regulatory statutes. You break the law when avoiding to register and license,  but you won't be charged with a criminal offense. OTOH, the gun registry makes first time offenders subject to criminal charges as opposed to civil matters subject to lesser charges and penalties. Meanwhile, you can still go out and murder someone with your vehicle and sometimes even get away with it depending on your political connections in this Northern Puerto Rico. The Liberals were grand standing when they created the gun registry. They don't give a shit about protecting women and children from poverty and violence really.

 

Plus you only have to register your vehicle if you intend to use it.  If you intend to leave it sit in the driveway or the garage or on blocks in the back yard, you don't have to register it at all.

Fidel

My father and uncles didn't have a lot to eat in the 1930's, so they often went hunting, fishing, trapping and even poaching on private property. I'm against killing people and murder as a personal rule of thumb. I know people with rods and guns and who appreciate the fresh air, and they're good people.

Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and Saint Paul
I've seen the future brother:
It is murder.
- L.C.

Unionist

[url=http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Columns/2010-08-28/article-1706128/No... by Lana Payne - President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour[/url]

Quote:
The gun registry is more than a wedge issue being capitalized on by the Conservatives, as NDP Leader Jack Layton has described it.

It is, for Mr. Layton, shaping up to be a test of leadership.

Twelve of his New Democrat MPs have voted with the Conservatives to dismantle the registry. Despite his personal support of the gun registry, the leader of Canada’s progressive party has refused to whip his caucus on this issue as the Liberal leader has done.

The bottom line is the fate of the registry rests with Mr. Layton and his MPs. The Conservatives may have fashioned this political box for the NDP leader, but as is often the case in politics and life, we do not always get to pick our battles. [...]

During his 1983 speech honouring the 50th anniversary of the NDP in Canada, Tommy Douglas said: “The growth and development of the New Democratic Party must never allow us to forget our roots. Don’t sacrifice conviction for success. Don’t ever give up quality for quantity. In a movement like ours, as socialist movements around the world have demonstrated, we’re not just interested in getting votes. We are seeking to get people who are willing to dedicate their lives to build a different kind of society, a society founded on the principles of concern for human well-being and human welfare.”

You have to wonder how someone like Tommy Douglas would have not just handled the gun registry debate, but the Ottawa of today. I expect it would have been with grace and skill.

I expect he would have risen to the courage of his convictions.

 

George Victor

Canadians' registry of guns = the War Measures Act.   

 

"The Conservatives may have fashioned this political box for the NDP leader, but as is often the case in politics and life, we do not always get to pick our battles. [...] "

 

Quite the sophomoric equation in sophistry. 

 

Unionist

That's true, George. It's an argument so plain and obvious that even the very young and uneducated can grasp it instantly - namely - sometimes, even if it's inconvenient, even if it involves risk, you need to stand up for your principles.

The example of Tommy could not be more apt. He didn't wish for doctors to walk off the job. He didn't ask for the October crisis. But he stood tall, to the eternal glory of himself personally and his party.

George Victor

And the Conservatives likewise call for a principled stand.  As John Ibbitson notes in the Globe today: "The people of Yukon want 'someone who will stand up for the people of this region, people of this territory, respect his word and vote to abolish the long-gun registry,' Mr. Harper declared at a media availability."

"The Conservatives happily exploit that divide, in the North and elsewhere. The Liberals and NDP can only suffer."

The Consservatives in Manitoba, whose MP Candice Hoeppner, put forward the motion to abolish, "has been touring oppositiion ridings to persuade (or torment) wavering Liberal and NDP MPs, " writes Ibbitson. 

One can understand the tormenting of the enemy.  New Democrats can't be the target of a tormentor, hereabouts...it just has to be a display of moral superiority. 

6079_Smith_W

Agreed, Unionist.

What perhaps makes this more complicated is the long game. It's pretty clear from recent comments that Harper is gearing up for what might be his last shot at a majority. If the NDP hold on this and lose a significant humber of their members in the process they might push the Harperites over the top and the registry will be dead anyway, along with the wheat board and a whole lot more.

I am not denying that it is the right thing to do. But neither choice is a guarantee of success, and both come with risks

Unionist

If the Bloc can stand tall on this issue, so can the NDP. Anyway, women and labour are unanimous, and that should give Layton all the backbone he needs to take the risk.

Stockholm

HOw can women be unanimous? Candace Hoeppner is a woman.

Stockholm

"If the Bloc can stand tall on this issue, so can the NDP."

They "stood tall" on it all right - and then a few days later they lost a rural Quebec seat to the Tories in a byelection. All we need is for the Liberals, NDP and BQ to go right on "standing tall" and then watch all those BQ, Liberal and NDP rural seats fall like dominoes to the Conservatives so that they get their majority in the next election. Is that what you'd like to see?

NorthReport

How many guns are there in Canada? How many per household? What's the actual cost to register a gun in Canada?

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

HOw can women be unanimous? Candace Hoeppner is a woman.

Oh yeah, and Harper had a summer job once, so I was wrong about labour as well.

You didn't really understand the lesson about the Bloc, did you? And you don't understand why the Liberals belatedly decided to whip the vote, did you?

Lana Payne understands very well. Why don't you send her an email and ask if she's pulling for a Conservative majority?

George Victor

And it isn't a harder sell elsewhere, and the obvious glee among Conservative ranks tells you nothing, and its all or nothing for saints in waiting, and a country without a social safety net - just big jails - under a Conservative majority won't result in immiseration on a far greater scale, and...

Stockholm

I've looked at polling data on the gun registry and there isn't all that much of a difference between the views of men and women on it. Its an issue that seems to pit urban people vs. rural people more than anything.

I'm not sure what "lesson" there is with the Bloc. They whipped their MPs and promptly lost a rural seat (obviously the voters of Riviere du Loup were not impressed) - even though I suppose that they THINK they have nothing to lose on the issue because they think they don't represent any ridings where the public is decisively against the registry. I'm not saying that the BQ lost that seat because of their stance on the registry - but it didn't get them any brownie points either. Ultimately, its all about political posturing. If Duceppe stuck his finger to the wind and thought for one second that there was a major anti-gun registry groundswell in rural Quebec that might cost him some seats - he would instantly call for a free vote in the BQ caucus.

Incidentally, if you really want to see where opposition to the gun registry is at its most intense - check out any First Nations reserves in northern Ontario or western Canada.

I used to think the gun registry wasn't a bad idea - but now that i see that all these fascistic police chiefs are so supportive of it - I'm having second thoughts. I tend to think that whatever the police want has got to be bad!

Unionist

Harper's majority government will be 5 years old in January, and some folks here haven't noticed yet.

Anyone who actually cares about removing Harper from power should be working out how to build a coalition - not how to cave in to his schemes.

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm #74

The registry IS a good idea. I see no reason why the government should not keep track of who has firearms and who does not.

It's just that the way it is currently put together has some grave and needless flaws. I don't know if the Liberals were wanting to push people to get rid of their guns, or if they did their research in self-help magazines, but it is almost like they designed it to fail. They certainly did their best to invite a backlash. It did not have to be this way.

Stockholm

Its quite amusing to see pro-registry people start to tout Toronto police chief Bill Blair as some sort of poster boy because he wants to keep the registry. Isn't this the same Bill Blair who used gestapo tcatics at the G20 demos and fabricated evidence afterwards to justify it all.

When the police advocate something - I say "stay as far away as possible".

Unionist

Blair is also a carnivore, so expect Stockholm to swear off smoked meat in protest.

This is great. Instead of getting behind the calls for getting a few MPs onside, we're hearing innovative arguments as to why Harper is right and the Liberals, the Bloc, the majority of the NDP caucus, and Jack Layton, are all wrong.

George Victor

This back and forth is just a response to unnecessary provocation , likely for this reason:

"One can understand the tormenting of the enemy.  New Democrats can't be the target of a tormentor, hereabouts...it just has to be a display of moral superiority." 

Stockholm

This whole issue is just a big distrcation designed to take our minds off the real issues. The best thing that can happen is that the gun registry dies - no one will shed a tear since its only purpose was to be a wedge issue and it never had any substantive value. Then we can move on to issues where the Tories are actually on the wrong side of public opinion.

In the end, the gun registry is a win-win for the Tories because its only really a vote determining issue for people who own guns - many of whom are actually Tory-NDP and sometimes Tory-Liberal swing voters. Plus its a great way to get First nations to start voting Tory since by all accounts they hate the registry more than anyone. They care because they are the ones who actually have to pay fees and deal with all the paperwork around registering.

People in cities may have some passive approval for the idea of "gun control" - even though the "gun registry" is not "gun control" - but ultimately very few urban dwellers will see this as a vote determining issue because ultimately whether the registry lives or dies will not make one iota of difference to their lives. I don't own a gun and I live in a city - how is my life going to change because some hunters in rural Saskatchewan do or do not have to register all their guns. In any case, all the major contenders (Liberal and NDP) in my riding in the next election will be in favour of keeping the registry - so the issue is a wash.

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

You have to wonder how someone like Tommy Douglas would have not just handled the gun registry debate, but the Ottawa of today. I expect it would have been with grace and skill.

I expect he would have risen to the courage of his convictions.

 

I have news for you. Tommy Douglas was from Sasktachewan where many if not most CCF/NDP members would have been avid hunters and would have owned guns. Every NDP leader (i.e. Romanow, Calvert etc...) and NDP MP from Saskatchewan has been 100% opposed to the Liberal Gun Registry since it was brought in. The NDP of Douglas's era was even more populist/blue collar/rural than it is today - so as much as we cannot ask Douglas since he died in 1985 - I strongly suspect that his views on this issue would have been in line with the views of his fellow Prairie New Democrats.

One of Tommy Douglas's great claism to fame was that he opposed the War Measures Act in 1970 - and I applaud him for that. It was also a free vote in the NDP caucus at the time on the WMA and about half a dozen NDP MPs broke ranks with Douglas and supported the WMA. Listening to some people on this thread i can only conclude that rather than lionising Douglas for his stance on the War Measures Act - we should condemn him as an unprincipled coward because he didn't whip the NDP caucus and have any renegade MPs who didn't vote with him expelled!!

George Victor

J.S.Woodsworth, founding leader of the CCF, opposed Canada's declaration of war in 1939...alone.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Unionist wrote:
sometimes, even if it's inconvenient, even if it involves risk, you need to stand up for your principles.

 

That's all very nice, Unionist.  But the registry is not a principle.  It is a policy - and in the eyes of many, a seriously flawed policy. 

The Liberals are happy to elevate it to the status of a shibboleth - just like the Conservatives - because it is a useful wedge and an effective fundraising cash cow.  And that is why neither party are prepared to allow any meaningful discussion on the issue of gun control, only an up and down vote on this seriously flawed policy.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Its quite amusing to see pro-registry people start to tout Toronto police chief Bill Blair as some sort of poster boy because he wants to keep the registry. Isn't this the same Bill Blair who used gestapo tcatics at the G20 demos and fabricated evidence afterwards to justify it all.

When the police advocate something - I say "stay as far away as possible".

 

It's just possible that the police chiefs like the registry because the legislation gives them carte blance to search witthout warrant.

Voodoorhythm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Stockholm #74

The registry IS a good idea. I see no reason why the government should not keep track of who has firearms and who does not.

It's just that the way it is currently put together has some grave and needless flaws. I don't know if the Liberals were wanting to push people to get rid of their guns, or if they did their research in self-help magazines, but it is almost like they designed it to fail. They certainly did their best to invite a backlash. It did not have to be this way.

Licensing already takes care of that well enough. 

To legally own or purchase a gun, you have to have a license.  To get your license you have to submit to a criminal record and mental health check. 

Given that, once licensed, a person can legally be in possession of a borrowed gun, registered to someone else, the registry becomes useless.  Police have access to license information, and simply running a PAL (possession and aquisition license) check would show whether the person in question could posess legal guns.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
If the Bloc can stand tall on this issue, so can the NDP.

The Bloc has no MPs outside of Quebec and therefore less of a stake in this than the NDP. The two old line parties are clearly targeting NDP MPs in this political diversion.  Liberals and Tories know who the effective opposition MPs are in Ottawa. We need a modern and competitive electoral system in this northern Puerto Rico.

ottawaobserver

Stockholm made the points I was going to make about Saskatchewan and also the free vote on the War Measures Act.

But Unionist also claimed that labour is united on the issue.  I'd challenge him to verify that assumption with his western colleagues in the CEP, Steel, and even the BCGEU.  When I worked on the Hill, we couldn't sell the long gun registry to labour out west any better than the CLC could sell its position on asymmetrical federalism out there at the time either.

The biggest problem with the handling of this issue is that the most passionate and reasonable advocates of each side have never really spoken with their counterparts on the other side, and truly listened to what the other was saying.  When 6079_Smith says:

Quote:

... it is almost like [the Liberals] designed it to fail. They certainly did their best to invite a backlash. It did not have to be this way.

... it hit the nail on the head.  At the time, the Liberal government was in the throes of its pro-urban, run against Alberta strategy, directed by Warren Kinsella and others.  Jane Taber claimed that they lost rural Ontario MPs over the vote, but that's factually wrong.  Their seat count went up in both western (all urban, except for DMCR where the NDP member crossed the floor) and central Canada between 1997 and 2000.  It only dropped after the right united, and in those rural ridings where the combination of the Reform and PC vote exceeded the Liberals' traditional strength.

The long-gun registry was introduced to drive a wedge, and the way its elimination is being proposed is also designed to drive a wedge.  Our people are falling for the tactic by accepting the limitations of the "box" Harper has supposedly put them in.

Here are 25 urban Conservative MPs who should be in people's headlights, and who should be made to understand the painful political cost of their voting against the long gun registry:

 * James Moore (Port Moody, BC)
 * [Woman --->] Dona Cadman (Surrey, BC)
 * [Woman --->] Alice Wong (Richmond, BC)
 * [Woman --->] Joy Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul, MB)
 * [Woman --->] Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, MB)
 * Ed Holder (London West, ON)
 * Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, ON)
 * Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, ON)
 * Peter Braid (Kitchener-Waterloo, ON)
 * Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills, ON)
 * [Woman --->] Lisa Raitt (Halton, ON)
 * David Sweet (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, ON)
 * Mike Wallace (Burlington, ON)
 * Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale, ON)
 * [Woman --->] Lois Brown (Newmarket-Aurora, ON)
 * Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges-Markham, ON)
 * Peter Kent (Thornhill, ON)
 * [Woman --->] Bev Oda (Durham, ON)
 * Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, ON)
 * Colin Carrie (Oshawa, ON)
 * Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, ON)
 * John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, ON)
 * Royal Galipeau (Ottawa-Orleans, ON)
 * [Woman --->] Sylvie Boucher (Beauport-Limoilou, QC)
 * [Woman --->] Josee Verner (Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC)

There are more, if you want to throw in Kamloops, BC (Cathy McLeod) or Sarnia-Lambton, ON (Patricia Davidson), although my guess is that the local values are more rural than urban.  Ditto for Edmonton and Calgary, and because of the stupid redistribution in Saskatchewan, there are no completely urban seats, not that it would matter there either.

9 of them are women.  15 of them are in seats that could be classified as less than safe.

If people honestly think it will be more productive to go after NDPers who ran saying they were opposed to the registry, and would lose their seats to Conservatives if they voted the opposite way, they may as well plan for a Conservative majority government now.

I'm suggesting people start to think outside of the "box" Harper has supposedly put us in, and find another way to win.

6079_Smith_W

@ OO

Well it didn't help that the justice minister who brought it in, Allan Rock, said he came to Ottawa with the idea that only police and the military should have access to firearms. For all the accusations that registry opponents are wearing tinfoil hats, the Liberals didn't actually take a very balanced approach to the issue when they drew up the thing. The man who stick-handled the bill provided the smoking gun, so to speak.

and @ Voodoorhythm #85

If it actually were a REAL mental health check I could almost see the point, but it is not. It is a question on a form which is as confusing and offensive as it is pointless. You'd think it would be at least as appropriate to ask anyone who wanted a driving license if they had drug or alcohol problems, but strangely enough no one has ever tried to push that through.

Unionist

I wonder why Jack Layton is publicly pressuring his MPs to vote to save the registry.

Does he not understand that this will cost him seats and hand Harper a majority?

Should Layton be replaced as leader if he's incapable of the elementary analysis served up in this thread?

6079_Smith_W

Doing the right thing is not always clear.

Was it right for Abraham Lincoln to exempt buffer states from the Emancipation proclamation? Evidently Lincoln gambled that keeping those states in the union was more important in the long haul, even if it meant returning some escaped slaves, and not respecting the principle of opposing human slavery.

It is also hard when you are fighting for an issue which, although the principle is clear, has been put into practice with a law which is in some respects a poisoned cup.

I'm not calling for Jack Layton's replacement. I am just recognizing that he is in a very hard place no matter what he decides, and I presume he might be privy to a lot of information that we do not have.

George Victor

Thanks, 6079.  That is a message aimed at readers in the real world. 

Unionist

6079, By whipping the vote, Layton can save the registry AND save his dissidents from certain defeat by voters who hàte the registry but keep voting NDP - right? Or so goes the "analysis".

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I wonder why Jack Layton is publicly pressuring his MPs to vote to save the registry. Does he not understand that this will cost him seats and hand Harper a majority? Should Layton be replaced as leader if he's incapable of the elementary analysis served up in this thread?

Or we could work toward replacing first-past-the-post.  Our obsolete FPP system is electoral fraud really.

Keep Jack, scrap the Red Chamber, and democratize Canada's political and electoral systems.

remind remind's picture

The greatest show on earth......

ottawaobserver

Unionist, why would you believe that whipping the vote would save those seats?

Anyways, as to what Jack Layton's doing ...

Quote:

It was wrong to include my photo with 12 MPs
Ottawa Citizen, August 28, 2010

Re: Gun registry's fate is in their hands, Aug. 25.

It was incorrect to include my photograph as one of 12 New Democrats still weighing their position on the Conservatives' controversial Bill C-391 on the long-gun registry. This is a serious misrepresentation.

As New Democrat justice critic, I have voted at each stage of the process to maintain this critical investigative tool, and worked tirelessly within my caucus and at committee to halt the advance of this potentially disastrous and politically motivated legislation.

Jack Layton is the only national leader working to bridge the genuine cultural divides between urban and rural Canada, even as Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper continue to play cynical wedge politics with the safety of our communities.

New Democrats remain focused on the pursuit of practical solutions which will balance the rights of legitimate sportsmen and women with a vigorous public safety regime capable of empowering our valiant police services to effectively protect the Canadian public and themselves.

Joe Comartin, Ottawa

MP for Windsor-Tecumseh

Stockholm

Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that this issue will actually have any legs in Liberal/NDP marginal seats in urban Canada. The fact is that the NDP MPs from ridings where public opinion is probably very pro gun registry are all voting against the private members bill. Libby Davies, Don Davies, Megan Leslie, Pat Martin, Olivia Chow, Jack Layton, Thomas Mulcair, Paul Dewar etc... are all going to vote that way. Even if any of them were going to vote to scrap the registry - I think its debatable that it would be a vote determining in a federal election down the road - but none of them are doing that.

So, explain to me - if I live in Trinity-Spadina and I support the gun registry and so does Olivia Chow and she votes to keep it - where is the wedge issue??? Unless I was Wendy Cukier herself (maybe) - it seems like you have to connect an awful lot of dots in an election sometime in 2011 to buy some convoluted Liberal talking point that would be something along the lines of "yes, Olivia Chow supports the gun registry and so does the Liberal candidate in this riding, BUT we must vote against her even though she is unswervingly supportive of the gun registry as an act of spite against the fact that the MP for Western Arctic is a member of the same party as she is and he voted to scrap the registry!". I dunno, I find that to be a very clumsy convoluted argument to make and one that will only have "legs" among a few die-hard Liberal bloggers.

Of course, if I were to accept the Liberal line that I should vote against pro-gun registry New Democrats to protest the fact that a smll minority of other NDPers are anti-gun registry - then I guess that means that no matter how pro-choice on abortion the Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina might claim to be - I should deny that person my vote because they sit in the same caucus as about a dozen Liberal MPs who are anti-choice fanatics!

Life, the unive...

Don't introduce logic into this discussion.  This thread and all previous threads demonstrates that this discussion is a complete logic free zone.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
So, explain to me - if I live in Trinity-Spadina and I support the gun registry and so does Olivia Chow and she votes to keep it - where is the wedge issue???

It's not quite as convoluted as you make it out to be. How about this:

"Olivia Chow voted to keep the registry - she did the right thing. But the registry is now dead, because some NDP MPs voted with Harper. A vote for Olivia Chow, unfortunately, is a vote for the party that killed the registry instead of keeping it, building on it, and moving to make our communities safer."

 

Stockholm

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the Tories are forcing MPs from urban and Quebec ridings to vote to ignore what their constituents think and all vote to scrap the gun registry. The Liberals and BQ are forcing MPs from rural ridings to vote to ignore what their constituents think and all vote to uphold the gun registry. Only the NDP has the best of both worlds - MPs from urban seats voting to keep the registry in accordance with their constituents want and MPs from remote and rural areas voting to scarp the registry in accordance with their constituents want. What's not to like - our caucus is a microcosm of Canada!

Stockholm

How about this: "the gun registry would still be alive today if the Liberals under Ignatieff didn't walk away from a coalition with the NDP in January 2009 and then spend the next two years keeping Harper in power in exchange for nothing"!

Pages

Topic locked