Gun-registry math frustrates NDP justice critic

The Tories are counting on NDP voters being as dumb and as easily manipulated as their own. I think herr Harper is in for a surprise. Just goes to show they view the NDP as the real opposition in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Fidel wrote:

The Tories are counting on NDP voters being as dumb and as easily manipulated as their own. I think herr Harper is in for a surprise. Just goes to show they view the NDP as the real opposition in Ottawa

How so?  They aren't afraid of the NDP replacing them in government, because they know they don't have the numbers.

They would prefer a phony majority. And since our election turnouts are anemic, they need to scrounge votes from anywhere they can. The way our obsolete electoral system works is that a relatively small gain in votes has tended to lead to disproportionate numbers of seat gains for either of the two pro Bay Street parties in Ottawa. Therefore, the Tories are looking for a relatively small gain in voter support in order to reap more seats than they deserve in terms of percentage of total votes cast.

The Tories are scrounging. And what better votes to steal than from the party that votes against the Tories in House votes more times than any other party? Mathematically speaking, the Tories don't want to take votes away from parties they are more compatible with than the NDP, and so they tend to target the NDP whenever they can. The Liberals are not a real opposition party by any means with having voted with the Tories wrt confidence votes many more times than the NDP or Bloc. And this charade is partly why the Liberal Party itself has lost voter support over the years. Canadians are beginning to realize that the Liberals are just another wing of the same conservative party and friendly to Bay Street and foreign interests over and above the interests of Canadians. See http://www.fairvote.ca for a detailed description of the democracy gap that exists in our Northern Puerto Rico.

[url=http://www.caw.ca/en/8182.htm]Save Our National Gun Registry[/url]

Quote:

After weeks of testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety from groups representing doctors, police, police chiefs, unions, victims of domestic violence, and women's shelters - all in support of maintaining Canada's national gun registry - Members of Parliament are poised to vote on legislation to dismantle this vital tool that keeps our communities safe.

Extra pressure needs to be put on the 12 NDP Members of Parliament who voted with the Conservative government on Bill C-391 in November:

* Malcolm Allen (Welland) - T: 905-788-2204 Ottawa: 613-995-0988 Email: [email protected]
* Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) - T: 705-567-2747 Ottawa: 613-992-2919 Email: [email protected]
* Niki Ashton (Churchill) - T: 866-785-0522 Ottawa: 613-992-3018 Email: [email protected]
* Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic - T: 867-873-6995 Ottawa: 613-992-4587 Email: [email protected]
* Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley) - T: (250) 877-4140 Ottawa: 613 993 6654 Email: [email protected]
* Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt) - T: 705-897-2222 Ottawa: 613-995-9107 Email: [email protected]
* Carol Hughes (Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing) - T: 705-848-8080 Ottawa: 613-996-5376 Email: [email protected]
* Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North) - T: 807-345-1818 Ottawa: 613 996 4792 Email: [email protected]
* Jim Maloway (Elmwood-Transcona) - T: 204-984-2499 Ottawa: 613-995-6339 Email: [email protected]
* John Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River) - T: 807-623-6000 Ottawa: 613 992 3061 Email: [email protected]
* Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) - T: 902-861-2311 Ottawa: 613-995-5822 Email: [email protected]
* Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury) - T: 705-673-7107 Ottawa: 613-996-8962 Email: [email protected]

hey perhaps someone could pop up the Cons email addys too.....

good post OO

[url=http://www.cep.ca/pub/open-letter-mr-layton-and-mr-ignatieff-defeat-bill... Letter to Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff - Defeat Bill C-391. Keep gun control and the gun registry[/url]

Signatories:

Quote:

Patricia DuVal, President, Canadian Federation of University Women

251 Bank Street Suite 305, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3. Phone: 613 234 8252

[email protected], www.cfuw.org

Susan Russell, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women

251 Bank Street Suite 305, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3. Phone: 613 234 8252

[email protected], www.cfuw.org

Canadian Labour Congress

2841 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1V 8X7

www.onceandforall.ca

Wendy Cukier, Coalition For Gun Control

[email protected] / 514-725-2021

www.guncontrol.ca

Lynne Kent, President, YWCA Canada

422-75 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2P9

Paulette Senior CEO, YWCA Canada

Ann Decter, YWCA Canada

Karen Dempsey, President, National Council of Women of Canada

Suite 506, Bank Street, Ottawa, ON, K2P 0L4

 

Rhonda Roffey, Executive Director, Women's Habitat

140 Islington Avenue, Etobicoke, ON M8V 3B6

www.womens-habitat.ca

Sadeqa Siddiqui, Coordonnatrice, Centre Communautaire des Femmes Sud-Asiatique

1035, rue Rachel Est 3è Étage, Montréal, Qc, H2J 2J5

Louise Riendeau, Coordonnatrice des dossiers politiques

Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale

http://www.maisons-femmes.qc.ca/

Kim Bulger, Executive Director, MATCH International

RebELLEs Movement - Mouvement RebELLEs"

[email protected], [email protected]

www.rebelles.org

Gisèle Pageau, Human Rights Director / Directrice des droits de la personne

Communications Energy Paperworkers Union of Canada/ Syndicat canadien des communications, de l’energie et du papier

301, avenue Laurier ouest / Laurier Ave W, Ottawa, ON , K1P 6M6

Andrée Côté, Women's and Human Rights Officer

Public Service Alliance of Canada

233 Gilmour St., Ottawa, ON, K2P 0P1

[email protected]

Sue Calhoun, President – Présidente, Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs

85 Brydges, Moncton, NB E1C 2E9 Canada

Razia Jaffer, President, Canadian Council of Muslim Women

PO Box 154, Gananoque, Ontario, Canada, K7G 2T7

Alia Hogben, Executive Director, Canadian Council of Muslim Women

PO Box 154, Gananoque, Ontario, Canada, K7G 2T7

Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy

Tracy Gierman, Executive Director, Canadian Federation to End Violence Against Women

Anna Pazdzierski, Nova House Inc.

Box 337 Selkirk, MB, R1A 2B3

Professor Martha Jackman, National Steering Committee

National Association of Women and the Law

[email protected]

 

Pamela Cross, National Association of Women and the Law

Viviane Doré-Nadeau, Director, ConcertAction Femmes Estrie

www.femmesenestrie.qc.ca

Pamela Harrison, Coordinator, Transition House Association of Nova Scotia

319-1657 Barrington St Halifax, NS B3J 2A1

[email protected] http://www.thans.ca

Odile Boisclair, Coordonnatrice, L'R des centres de femmes du Québec

Nicole Pietsch, OCRCC Coordinator, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres (OCRCC) 1515 Rebecca St, Suite 227, Oakville, ON, L6L 5G8

Leslie M. Tutty, Ph.D., RESOLVE Alberta

2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4

Alexa Conradi, Présidente, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Eileen Morrow, Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses – OAITH

Diane Delaney, Coordinator, Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan

2505 11th Avenue, Regina, SK S4P 0K6

Jeanne Landry, Executive Director, Société Inform'Elles Society

Jennifer Hagedorn, Provincial Coordinator, Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters, www.maws.mb.ca

Manon Monastesse, Directrice, Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour

femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec

2485, rue Sherbrooke Est, Montréal H2K 1E8

Nadia Fazio, Italian Women’s Center of Montreal

1586, Fleury east, #100, Montreal, Quebec, H2C 1S6

Shabna Ali, Executive Director, The Society of Transition Houses, BC Society of Transition Houses

www.bcysth.ca

Blanche Paradis, Coordonnatrice

Réseau des tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec

651, rue Bastien Saint-Jérôme J7Y 2X7

[email protected], www.reseautablesfemmes.qc.ca

 

Diane Heffernan, Coordinator, Quebec Lesbian Network

Louise Lagarde, Trésorière provincial, Les Cercles de Fermières du Québec

Nathalie Villeneuve, President

Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale

www.maisons-femmes.qc.ca/

Joey Edwardh, PhD, Executive Director, Community Development Halton

860 Harrington Court, Burlington, ON L7N 3N4

[email protected], www.cdhalton.ca

David Singleton, Coordinator, Montreal Assault Prevention Centre

Mary Zilney, Executive Director, Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region

Tzipie Freedman, Regional Director (Montreal)

Jewish Women International of Canada

Eleanor Summer, Executive Director, South Okanagan Women in Need

Penticton, BC

Elka Ruth Enola, Past President, Halton-Peel Humanist Community

Lise Gervais, Coordonnatrice générale, Relais-femmes

110 rue Ste-Thérèse suite 301, Montréal, Québec, H2Y 1E6

Norah Kennedy, Executive Director, Family Transition Place

20 Bredin Parkway, Orangeville, ON L9W 4Z9, www.familytransitionplace.ca

Brandi Hanterman, Executive Director, Fireweed Collective Society,

Fort St. James BC

Rheanna Sand, President YWCA Edmonton

Ginette Guay-Defiy, Directrice générale, YWCA Quebec

Kim Decker, Executive Director, YWCA Cambridge

Wendy Leeder, Co Executive & Shelter Services Director , YWCA Durham

Jim Bonk, CEO, YMCA-YWCA of Guelph

Catherine M Pead, CEO, YWCA Hamilton

Tanis Crosby, Executive Director, YWCA Halifax

Elizabeth Clark, Executive Director, YWCA Kitchener-Waterloo

Lynn Zimmer, Executive Director, YWCA Peterborough, Victoria and Haliburton

Heather McGregor, CEO, YWCA Toronto

Kristin Blakely-Kozman, President, YWCA Toronto

Marlene Gorman, Executive Director, YWCA Sudbury

Barb Macpherson, Executive Director, YWCA Saskatoon

Beth Ward, Executive Director, Community YWCA of Muskoka

Debbie McGee, Producer/Director, Distance Education and Learning Technologies

Memorial University of Newfoundland, A1C 2S2,

[email protected]

Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

57 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N6

(613) 562-5800, extension 3317

Judy Rebick, CAW Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy

Ryerson University

Karen Vanscoy (mother of Jasmine, shot and killed September, 1996)

Murray Dobbin, Activist and writer

Mair Verthuy

Allyson Coogan

Stacey Johnson

Judy Goodings

Also on the list of addressees:

Quote:

cc. M. Duceppe

Ms. Irene Mathyssen

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Malcolm Allen

Mr. Charlie Angus

Ms. Niki Ashton

Mr. Dennis Bevington

Mr. Nathan Cullen

Mr. Claude Gravelle

Mrs. Carol Hughes

Mr. Bruce Hyer

Mr. Jim Maloway

Mr. John Rafferty

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Glenn Thibeault

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Anthony Rota

Mr. Todd Russell

Mr. Scott Simms

Debater wrote:

The NDP doesn't have enough seats to become an alternative government - that is correct, and most people know that.

That sentence makes no sense. Of course they don't have enough seats to become an alternative government. Most Canadians knew it immediately after the last election was held.

And, Canadians are still reluctant to hand either of the two Bay Street parties the much coveted phony-baloney majority. It's all Harper and Iggy can do for now is stall for time and do nothing much in the way of governing with transparency or accountability until the next first-past-the-ghost election is held and mathematically absurd results announced by Elections Bananada. DAY-O!

If the NDP by some happy miracle votes to keep the registry, and enough Liberals break ranks to kill it, then the Libs can kiss goodbye to Outremont besides most of the rest of Québec. The impetus for that registry came from here.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I conclude that the issue is already factored in to people's voting decisions, so long as they can vote for a pro-gun control candidate in their riding.

I have no and claim no expertise whatsoever in electoral predictions.The NDP leadership supports the registry, and that much has registered with voters that I know here. But if the registry is actually killed by failing to whip a vote - and if the numbers show that a few NDP members tipped the balance - it could be a significant blow.

Quote:

I hope Layton and Comartin are successful in their lobbying efforts, as I'm not keen on whipping votes on private members' bills, however transparent this one might be as a government initiative.

I have never understood this concept. If there's a private members' bill to ban SSM, and another Bev Desjarlais declares she'll vote the wrong way, is that supposed to be A-ok? If there's a principle of some kind involved here, it's way beyond me. And I repeat, if that "principle" is seen as a contributing factor to reducing gun control, it will not go well here.

As for debating the registry itself - no thanks. No matter how ineffective (or not) it may be, anyone who opposes it will have to explain to all the women's and labour organizations and others who will see this as a betrayal. Good luck with that.

Unionist wrote:

If the NDP by some happy miracle votes to keep the registry, and enough Liberals break ranks to kill it, then the Libs can kiss goodbye to Outremont besides most of the rest of Québec. The impetus for that registry came from here.

I think you are grossly exagerrating the extent to which this is a vote determining issue in urban ridings. Especially since Mulcair will vote to save the gun registry and that's all that matters. It's hard for me to imagine that six months from now, ANYONE in Outremont is going to dsay to themselves "I am upset that the long gun registry was scrapped, therefore I want to vote against my MP who voted the way i wanted him to vote and wanted to keep the gun registry intact - just to teach a lesson to other members of his caucus from the Arctic who voted the other way". It just strikes and far too complex a line of argument and one that will have little resonance outside of a few die-hard Liberal bloggers (btw: are we all supposed to vote to defeat gay positive Liberal MPs because SOME Liberal MPs voted against same sex marriage?)

Unionist wrote:

I have never understood this concept. If there's a private members' bill to ban SSM, and another Bev Desjarlais declares she'll vote the wrong way, is that supposed to be A-ok? If there's a principle of some kind involved here, it's way beyond me. And I repeat, if that "principle" is seen as a contributing factor to reducing gun control, it will not go well here.

As for debating the registry itself - no thanks. No matter how ineffective (or not) it may be, anyone who opposes it will have to explain to all the women's and labour organizations and others who will see this as a betrayal. Good luck with that.

Like a lot of people I am agnostic at best on the registry- and I say this as a firearms owner.  It is neither as bad as those opposed pretend, or does what those in favour suggest. 

The above quote is a perfect example of the misinformation both sides spread.  The gun registry does nothing for gun control.  Despite Liberal rhetoric it was never intended or designed to do so.  It is a simple registry of what firearms are out there.  It does nothing for actually blocking firearms owership.  That is done by other means -although the registry can tip off problems associated with firearms owners, but taht could be acheived without the registry as well.  Not one single gun is controled through the registry- Zero.

And please give the hyperbole a rest.  Placing same sex marriage on the same level as the long-gun registry just invalidates everything else you say.

Unionist, the NDP is split on the registry issue.  There is no democratic way to determine which side of the issue should be whipped.

jrootham wrote:

Unionist, the NDP is split on the registry issue.  There is no democratic way to determine which side of the issue should be whipped.

 

The NDP is split on every issue (whether you mean members, or voters, or caucus) - Afghanistan, SSM, Harper's omnibus crime bill... The democratic way is to discuss it thoroughly and vote. The undemocratic way is to say, "we'll leave it to individual conscience", when doing so will knowingly allow Harper to win. That's just my opinion, though.

That's not really true.  SSM has reached enough consensus that opposition means you leave the party.  Afhganistan has a convention resolution and whatever waffling has occurred has not really violated that resolution.  The crime bill is a horrible problem and a complete failure by the party leadership.

Well, the implication that an MP would vote based on "individual conscience" is almost always shorthand for saying "individual conscience in spite of what their constituents believe".  So, when someone says

Quote:

The undemocratic way is to say, "we'll leave it to individual conscience"

it's a pretty clear charge that whoever would say they're voting their conscience is charging that they so at the expense of their constituents' views.

The way you constructed the issue indicates that the party's position and the determination of that position is the only issue.  But surely representative democracy is always a tension between personal, ideological, and regional tugs.

Those MPs who come from those areas: (a) likely share many of the views of the people they represent, and (b) were elected in large part to represent those views, although admittedly in light of (c) the views they were also known to hold themselves when they sought to be elected.

A free vote is not as much a vote of the MP's individual conscience, as of the right for MPs to represent the particular interests of people in the area they represent, as against some other overriding national (often urban) view that doesn't fit.

By ignoring that aspect, you cut the "canadians" out of the equation, is what I was arguing, and centre everything back on the ideology and party democratic processes for determining party policy.  Now, you say you were only trying to address the second question, so fair enough.  I didn't realize that's the approach you were coming from.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

ETA: Also, thanks Sean for parsing some sense out of my last comments.

6079...

Can you help me out here? I don't have a gun and have only heard the rhetoric about what is wrong with the registry but little of the details. I am clear on the purpose. I agree that the distinction you speak about is there but the main argument I have seen is that it does not do any good and therefore is wasteful when I know it certianly ought to be useful.

If we could focus on what is wrong then we could right it.

Can you outline briefly what you think is the problem and what it would take to fix?

I admit this is a part of the overall policy tone that exists in this country where the Cons argue "this is not perfect so let's kill it"-- that's their approach to medicare as well for example. Medicare is of course the best option and the program as a whole is excellent. There are improvements that are required from better human resource management (relying on more full time positions and less overtime for example) to better cost management through a national pharmacare program and investments in home and long term care that would relieve the pressure on actue care. But the Con approach is to exaggerate the problems and then offer the only solution: they want to kill it. Sounds like Gun control to me, and almost every other national policy debate, in terms of the approach. At the other end when they want soemthing it is the same type of discussion -- we want security so we have to accept everything done in the name of security or be acussed of wanting to undermine it. Take-it-as-it-is or lose it mentality. Unbelievably arogant and an affront to the spirit of democracy as people get forced in to unecessary and inappropriate polarized positions between two unacceptable options.

So back to gun control-- can you bring this discussion away from the general good-bad argument to something prescriptive?

remind wrote:

Life, I do not know about not preventing people who should not have access to guns from doing so.

Here in our small community there is a guy who cannot, ands should not, have  guns, and the only thing that is keeping people from selling him one is the registry.

 

Should that go, it won't be a good thing for is family.

 

For that reason alone I am against getting rid of it.

 

And this is something I have thought long and hard over,as originally I was against it.

Without or with the registry, you need an FAC to buy a gun. If you have it, the registry will not prevent you from getting one. If you dont, not having a registry wont mean you can get one.

You cant even buy ammo anymore without a FAC

Sean- as I stated above.  The long gun registry is not gun control.  This is one of the basic problems with this discussion- the other being the rhetoric about it being the first step in taking away firearms coming from the other side. 

This is where the problem starts for those proponents of the registry- they think they are getting gun control when they are not.  Not even a little bit.  All the registry does is codify in a database who has (and I guess potentially who does not have) a long gun of some kind.  It does little more.  It does have some useful features in that stockpiling of weapons or ammuntition could cause a red flag to come to the attention of registry staff.  Not one single, solitary weapon is controlled in any way though. 

Gun control, including those deemed to be unfit to have a weapon, occurs through other means- it simply does not flow through the long gun registry.  The function of red flagging those attempting to purchase a weapon could be acheived through other means- a registry is not the only way to do this, so that function is a matter of how it is currently used- not an issue of it must be used that way.  That is a bill of goods the Liberal sold to try and look like they were doing something to appease mostly urban voters.  But the simple and plain unvarnished fact is that the long gun registry doesn't actually do what people think it does. 

Like Smith_w I see no real reason to be against a registry in and of itself, however, the particular animal we have now is a beast in and of itself that does not serve the end of gun control and takes up valuable public debate space and resources.  It does help the police in some limited ways to suspect a weapon is on a premisise but that is about it- and they already do that even if nothing shows up in their registry check.

The real problem is that we have issues in our society where weapons are used to threaten, control and kill primarily women and children.  (Handguns being an exception but most of those are illegal and outside of the scope of a registry too).  The registry does not stop this and protect women and children in abusive situations- we have wasted a decade arguing over the long gun registry and the polictical games of politicians and doing almost nothing to deal with the real problems and issues.  At least that's my view.

ETA

By the way I share the frustration that the 'debate' (and it is hard to call what we have a debate) is so polorized.  We seem to not be allowed any middle ground which is telling I think- that this is mostly about political advantage and not good public policy.

Life, I do not know about not preventing people who should not have access to guns from doing so.

Here in our small community there is a guy who cannot, and should not, have guns, and the only thing that is keeping people from selling him one, or getting bullets for the ones he has stashed, is the registry.

Should that go, it won't be a good thing for is family.

For that reason alone I am against getting rid of it.

And this is something I have thought long and hard over, as originally I was against it.

Talking here mainly about person to person sales btw.

if people think a gun cannot be traced back to them, they are more than willing to sell it to whomever. Same goes for bullets.

Tho if they originally bought it from a store, they are fucked if anything goes bad with the gun they gave away

Many people, at least here and other places I know, have never registered their guns and are more than willing to sell, for whatever reason.

the FAC means nothing to them, though the registry does.

Especially if they never registered their guns

True, not having a FAC and posessing ammo will result in a stiff jail sentence and fine