The firearm registry saga - II

126 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2010-09-01 11:50

No Yards

The firearm registry saga - II

Heather Mallick weighs in

Quote:

Oh for a quiet life, Jack Layton thinks as he shuffles about asking his members to please vote to support the national long-gun registry because if they don’t, he’ll be remembered as the guy who finished it off.

All he has to do is tell them how to vote. He’s the boss, and besides, it’s hardly a matter of conscience.

But he’s worried that he’ll anger voters who’ve been suckered into the Conservative mindset that registering your gun is a failure of manhood.

snip ...

Why did this happen?

A smart NDP friend once explained that life is actually very nice for the caucus. Even though they aren’t in power as such, they have comfortable lives on the high moral ground. No radical or even interesting ideas emerge because it would disrupt the picnic. New ideas and brave stands are messy, like sand on the rug or spilled jam.

Link here

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:24

6079_Smith_W

@ No Yards

I have read some of Mallick's opinions with which I agree (sorry... hangover from another thread) but in this case she's doing the lefty equivalent of wrapping herself in the flag, in my opinion.

Not one step toward recognizing people (like me) who support gun registration yet see the current legislation as deeply flawed.

Not one step toward recognizing the political reality that one can only whip a caucus and an electorate so much before they break, and the fact that this showdown is not just about the registry.

He's the boss; he should act like one and do what we say. That makes a lot of sense.

Layton has made his decision. Deal with it.

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:53

No Yards

The point is that Jack is driving NDPers away from the party ... doesn't matter if you or I agree with their reasoning (although I do agree with Malick's reasons, and have some more of my own) or not.

I won't be voting NDP (Layton's riding) this time around if this kind of "leadership" is still in place come election time ... you can disagree if you wish, but I guess you can just put it down to me "dealing with it".

By the way, I'd make a slight change to one of your statements .. it should read "He's the boss; He should act like one and do what HE says" (in that he claims to understand that the registry saves lives ... a much more important principle to whip the vote for than when he whipped it to pass the useless piece of repressive neo-con garbage that was the "tough on crime" bill.)

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:03

remind

as opposed to those who have been suckered into the Liberal mindset...I suppose....again, had the Liberals not been so self-serving we would not be in this position.

got no time for the msm media hacks who are still shilling for status quo, and who have played a large part in keeping harper in power.

Not that Mallick was one, but she apparently is now.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:11

6079_Smith_W

@ No Yards

Actually no, I don't take your correction because I assume he made his final difficult decision by weighing his vote with many other important considerations. Cutting and pasting decisions from other bills like they are precedents is frankly nonsensical because politics does not work that way.

And just to ante up (since I know you made a reference to this in the last thread) no, I'm not a card-carrying member of the NDP, nor a hard-line supporter, though they are definitely the least-icky option for me. My personal feelings about this issue - yes, they might have something to do with my perspective.

Most importantly though, I credit any party leader with the political sense to put a bit of thought into a decision like this before making it.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:28

KenS

No Yards wrote:

The point is that Jack is driving NDPers away from the party ... doesn't matter if you or I agree with their reasoning (although I do agree with Malick's reasons, and have some more of my own) or not.

And do you think he would not be driving people away, in substantial numbers, if he whips the vote in favour of the registry? [which by the way, a number of MPs would defy]

That really is a question, because I cant guess your answer.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:35

No Yards

remind wrote:

as opposed to those who have been suckered into the Liberal mindset...I suppose....again, had the Liberals not been so self-serving we would not be in this position.

got no time for the msm media hacks who are still shilling for status quo, and who have played a large part in keeping harper in power.

Not that Mallick was one, but she apparently is now.

But they were, and we are ... now Layton has a choice. Does he have the party support a program that he knows saves lives, or does he let that program die? Blaming the Liberals for putting us in this position is fine, but blaming the Liberals does save the registry and lives ... whipping the party does (following Jacks own stated logic on the issue.)

Criticizing the NDP doesn't necessarily mean one is being "suckered" into the Liberal mindset ... even a wildly weaving car at times finds itself in the proper lane.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:05

No Yards

KenS wrote:

No Yards wrote:

The point is that Jack is driving NDPers away from the party ... doesn't matter if you or I agree with their reasoning (although I do agree with Malick's reasons, and have some more of my own) or not.

And do you think he would not be driving people away, in substantial numbers, if he whips the vote in favour of the registry? [which by the way, a number of MPs would defy]

That really is a question, because I cant guess your answer.

Yep, speaking strictly in political strategic terms he probably would ... in a potential 12 ridings vs a potential 24 ridings if he let the registry die, all the while admitting that more people will die due to his refusal to whip the vote.

But, I take your point that he is probably calculating that those against the registry will be less forgiving that those for the registry if he also explains to the pro-registry people how he was all for the registry and saving lives, but this important principle of not whipping the vote for faux Private Member Bills is too sacred to be messed with.

As for MPs defying the whip, I don't see that as a valid excuse for not whipping the vote ... sure, it may well expose Jacks weak leadership if that happens, so we then start looking for a stronger leader ... it's not really that great a virtue for a party to be hiding their leaders weak leadership one would think.

ETA: I wonder what letting the registry die will do for NDP support in Quebec where support for the registry is strong? You think the "birthplace" of modern firearm control will forgive the NDP for letting it die?

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:16

Life, the unive...

blah, blah, blah. Layton is control-freak demegouge one day and weak the next. What a load of hooey. Don't think people can actually see through you for yards and yards and yards.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:28

#10

Aristotleded24

No Yards wrote:
I wonder what letting the registry die will do for NDP support in Quebec where support for the registry is strong? You think the "birthplace" of modern firearm control will forgive the NDP for letting it die?

During the last by-elections the Conservatives actually picked up a seat, so that would suggest that the gun registry is not as big in Quebec as people might like to think.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:29

#11

Aristotleded24

Stuart Parker wrote:
Free votes are a manifestation of democracy?

Whipped votes are somehow unsavoury?

Not at all, you have to consider the circumstances as they pertain to each situation. In the case of Bev Desjarlais:

1) On that vote, there was a clear issue of human rights at stake.

2) From a practical standpoint, there was a large enough consensus within the NDP on that issue that the practicality of enforcing the whip was not an issue. So one person breaks ranks? Not a problem, one person can be dealt with. On the gun registry, there is no clear consensus even among rank-and-file New Democrats, much less the MPs. What do you think would happen if 1/3 of the caucus still defied the whip? The registry still dies, but not only that, there's a huge crisis within the party. How do you resolve that?

3) One of the complaints average people have about Canadian politics is that it is dictated by the party leaders and that MPs have no sway and cannot make independent decisions. Whipping the vote would only confirm that sentiment.

4) So many complain about Harper undermining democracy, taking a dictatorial approach and refusing to deal with dissenting opinions, and yet these same people want Layton to do the same on the registry. Which is it? Do you want democracy or don't you? You can't have it both ways.

As for the Toronto Star article, I find it quite condescending and I don't think she speaks for as many people as she claims. On the specific points:

Heather Mallick in Toronto Star wrote:
But no, Layton does an Obama. Even if he changes his mind, it is too late for me. I am done with Layton.

He caved before his uninformed voters and his caucus, releasing MPs who would be crucial in letting the Tories win. They will help turn Canada into an unregulated gun zone that is especially dangerous for women.

How does she figure? Gun control was in place before the Liberals introduced it. It's not like eliminating the registry will take away those previous controls.

Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star wrote:
There are women walking around intact today who will die at the hands of their violent husbands if the registry vanishes. The registration forms are designed to guard against people buying guns after they separate, or divorce, or are under psychiatric care. And it tells police officers what’s waiting for them when they approach a home where there’s a domestic dispute

1) Police officers always assume the worst of a potential situation, especially since the registry cannot tell whether guns have been loaned or borrowed or if there are any illegal guns on the property.

2) Since when are the police a respected authority in progressive circles? These are the same people who want tasers. Should we trust their judgement, since they're only trying to protect us from the bad guys the courts refuse to deal with?

Heather Mallick in Toronto Star wrote:
ER doctors love the thing. So do feminist women like me, women born in the north who grew up with guns and ate the meat of animals shot by them, but feel quite strongly that they don’t want their own personal bodies torn apart by bullets.

I feel like a fool for believing in the NDP’s devotion to women’s rights.

See my earlier approach about condescending. She doesn't appear to be willing to hear out different opinions. And since when did women's rights begin and end with the gun registry?

Stockholm wrote:
I love how some people put together a laundry list of their own personal opinions on a raft of issues and then essentially pronounce that "Any position I take is ipso-facto the definition of what it is to be progressive - I am the Pope of progressivism"!!

No you're not, I am! ;)

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:31

#12

Stockholm

I can't believe people can keep a straight face while writing some of these histrionic posts - as if either you supporting whipping the caucus to save the gun registry or you are an apologist for Marc Lepine and all gun-related deaths of women and children that have ever happened etc...I'm not going to have my intelligence insulted with these kinds of "when did you stop beating your wife?-type" arguments.

I find it amusing how the people who say they will refuse to vote NDP if Layton doesn't "whip the vote" seem to be the same people who have declared they were deserting the NDP at least half a dozen previous times. I seem to recall people saying they would never vote NDP again after the party made a budget deal with paul Martin, then again after voting down the Martin government, then for whipping the vote on SSM but not having strong enough punishment for Bev Desjarlais, then for allowing the formation of a party commission on faith and social justice, then on the Libby Davies Isreal comments, then on the age of consent etc...etc...etc... each time the same half dozen people pronlounce they have "had it" with the NDP. I guess i missed them crawling back into the fold after each previous "storming out in a huff" so they could then re-announce their disaffection.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:36

#13

Life, the unive...

The more I see the ignorance on display and the kind of rhetoric the pro-registry people are trotting out again the more I am convinced that the best thing politically for Harper will be for the registry to be 'saved'. I believe quite strongly that it will lead directly to a Conservative majority government. The Liberal party is hanging out to dry current rural Liberal MPs, with very divisive rhetoric , and those Liberal candidates sitting in ridings the Liberals must win back to defeat the Conservatives. This will be a very pyrrhic victory it seems.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:41

#14

Stockholm

The Liberals don't want to defeat the Conservatives - all they care about is winning that "bright shiny bauble" named Outremont from the NDP. Its an obsession. The dark Lord Sauron (aka Count Ignatieff) is obsessed with the shiny gold ring named Outremont - it is ALL that matters!

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:48

#15

Lord Palmerston

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Since when are the police a respected authority in progressive circles? These are the same people who want tasers. Should we trust their judgement, since they're only trying to protect us from the bad guys the courts refuse to deal with?

As a supporter of the registry and of more (not less) gun control, I think this is a very good point. I find it quite irksome that the police are trotted out as "allies" in the cause.

But on the whole, I am convinced the registry has done more good than harm. I agree with Walkom when he says: "the lives the registry saves are worth the relatively paltry $1 million to $4 million spent each year to keep it going."

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:55

#16

Life, the unive...

Those stats are very suspect though. Atributing them to the registry seems more a political calculation than a mathematical one. There is simply no way to know if the reduction is simply part of the general reduction in violent crimes Canada has experienced during that period, or based on the PAL system and not the registry per se, or the result of school breakfast programs, better awareness or better engineer guns that don't go off as easily in accidents.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:59

#17

Stockholm

If we want to start getting into the trap of "you must vote for this because it SAVES LIVES" then hold on to your hats for when the Tories start bringing all kinds of three-strikes you're out "tough on crime" policies that will be endlessly justfied on the basis that they "save lives" because as long as perpetrators are in jail forever - they cannot kill anyone. There will be endless examples of so-and so who was on parole and killed someone - if we just got rid of parole and made everyone serve their full sentence - a life would have been saved!!

Do you really want to start going down that road?

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:03

#18

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

What I find interesting is the omission of any mention of the other key allies in wanting to maintain the registry: women's groups who are fighting to reduce domestic violence.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:03

#19

ottawaobserver

I guess there was a little confusion towards the end of the last thread about something that was written as a retort to something I had posted, and which I should clear up now.

I'd posted a few links to this and that (which I now figure is a better way for me to participate on this subject). Unfortunately, I had to step out not long after. Another babbler tried to click on one of the links I posted, and questionned if there might have been some motivation behind the resource no longer being there, posting instead what he found at the link (the product of the copy and paste didn't work out so well, and just left boxes all over the place). A third babbler provided an alternate link to a similar resource that had since been added. A fourth babbler questionned the questioner's motivations in questioning me on where the link went, and reposted all of the second poster's boxes by way of example. Meanwhile the content of the original link had been restored in the interim, and who really knows why it disappeared in the first place but nothing appears to have changed in the content in between. It could as easily have been a slip of the finger.

So, it didn't upset me that someone raised the point about a 404 being returned from a link I posted, not at all. I'm glad someone else who was around could post something comparable, and it's also a good thing that the oversight in deleting the resource itself was remedied later on. But that sequence of events certainly explains why some people here may have been confused, or have thought that I was being falsely accused of posting something that wasn't there when in fact it was.

Ah, life in the online world.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:13

#20

6079_Smith_W

@ Life, The Universe, everything

A friendly reminder - If we try to keep our terms straight things will be much less confused and polarized.

I AM a pro-registry person. I still think the existing legislation is needlessly fucked up, politically partisan, and working against the principle of real gun control. I am sorry to be a stickler, but on such a delicate issue as this it is important to be clear, unless we want to perpetuate that black-and-white mindset that seems to be hanging over this issue.

In fact the whole notion that people find Layton's support of the principle and his insistence on MP freedom to be a conflict rests entirely on that black-and-white view.

Again, this is a friendly reminder. I don't intend it as a personal swat, and I am sorry if it sounds a bit strident.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:17

#21

Unionist

I seem to recall praising Jack's statement immediately after, when a working link was posted. It's still a fine statement, and I wish more people here supported it.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:18

#22

No Yards

Aristotleded24 wrote:

No Yards wrote:
I wonder what letting the registry die will do for NDP support in Quebec where support for the registry is strong? You think the "birthplace" of modern firearm control will forgive the NDP for letting it die?

During the last by-elections the Conservatives actually picked up a seat, so that would suggest that the gun registry is not as big in Quebec as people might like to think.

I don't imagine this is one of those areas where the NDP would ever play a factor anyway ... this was a case of a long time traditional Progressive Conservative riding turing back to its old party (as they see it) not a referendum on the firearm registry. It's hard to see this riding as being any kind of bell weather for the firearm registry issue in Quebec as a whole .... If the cons start winning ridings in Montreal then you'll have something.

That said, it may be that by the time any elections come by no one will remember the Cons and NDP voting together to kill the registry and Layton doing nothing to prevent it ... if I were a loyaly to the end Dipper that's what I would be hoping for in Quebec.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:27

#23

No Yards

Stockholm wrote:

If we want to start getting into the trap of "you must vote for this because it SAVES LIVES" then hold on to your hats for when the Tories start bringing all kinds of three-strikes you're out "tough on crime" policies that will be endlessly justfied on the basis that they "save lives" because as long as perpetrators are in jail forever - they cannot kill anyone. There will be endless examples of so-and so who was on parole and killed someone - if we just got rid of parole and made everyone serve their full sentence - a life would have been saved!!

Do you really want to start going down that road?

Finally, something that Stockholm disagrees with Layton on ... you are aware that it is Jack himself that made this claim, and would presumably be the message he is (pretending he is) bringing to the 12 NDP MPs who would vote against the registry?

Oh, BTW, thanks for the reminder Stock, what was the reason Jack whipped the vote to support the Cons "tough on crime" bill anyway? Hope he had a much more important reason to do so that that pathetic "saves lives" reason.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:03

#24

Stockholm

No Yards wrote:

During the last by-elections the Conservatives actually picked up a seat, so that would suggest that the gun registry is not as big in Quebec as people might like to think.

I don't imagine this is one of those areas where the NDP would ever play a factor anyway ... this was a case of a long time traditional Progressive Conservative riding turing back to its old party (as they see it) not a referendum on the firearm registry. It's hard to see this riding as being any kind of bell weather for the firearm registry issue in Quebec as a whole .... If the cons start winning ridings in Montreal then you'll have something.

I'd like to see any documentation you have that Montmagny-L'islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-du-loup was ever a "long time traditional PC riding"? I believe that seats went PC along with the rest of Quebec in 1984 and 1988 - but since then it was a very safe BQ seat that tended to go BQ by wide margins. I don't think that the Tories won that seat BECAUSE they oppose the gun registry - BUT the vote to kill the registry passed second reading literally days before that byelection and the BQ certainly tried to make hay out of the issue - yet the trend to the Tories in that byelection just kept going and it appears that they did not lose any support at all as a result of wanting to scrap something that is supposedly "wildly popular" in Quebec.

Polling data tells us something about the breadth of support for the gun registry in Quebec - but nothing about the depth of it. For all I care 95% of the population could support something - but what if only 1% of those people have strong enough feelings about the issue for it to be a vote determining issue? Maybe 98% of people prefer strawberries to blueberries - does that mean that all Jack layton has to do is pronounce himself a strawberry lover and then he can sit back and get all those votes?

Usually a good rule of thumb is as follows: The extent to which an issue is a hot topic on babble is usually INVERSELY proportional to the extent to which an issue concerns the general public. If you want to know what the average person does NOT care about - just make a list of what topics tend to get the longest threads on babble (ie: anything to do with Israel/Palestine and the gun registry) and that is a good gauge.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:07

#25

Fidel

The Libs just want Outremont. They've been ordered to take the crest of the hill at all costs to life and limb. This is their stand. This is them being progressive.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:18

#26

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm

With respect, the hyperbolae are not really contribibuting to a reasoned discussion. Might I suggest a time-out.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:33

#27

Lou Arab

I can't help wondering how sure the Liberals are that all their MPs are going to follow the whip. Larry Bagnell was on the radio a couple of days ago openly musing about voting in favour of the bill. Are there others? What are the consequenses for MPs who disregard Ignatieff?

Their NDP baiting will look pretty silly if they themselves can't deliver the votes.

Perhaps the Liberals have the votes in the bag and I'm just whistling in the wind - but given the times the OLO has messed up this kind of postering, I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. Espesically with Bagnell out there talking about voting yes.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:49

#28

Life, the unive...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Life, The Universe, everything

A friendly reminder - If we try to keep our terms straight things will be much less confused and polarized.

What are you talking about? Have you seen the rhetoric from people like Ignatieff, Mallick and others. It is very, very similar to the stuff that was spewed when the long gun registry was started. And I am starting to get the gut feeling that these registry supporters are going to be helping Harper march to a majority government. With the way things are going Harper wins -period. Full stop.

And I am one of the few people who use the correct term PAL, instead of the incorrect term FAC -so frankly I have no idea what you are on about.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:01

#29

6079_Smith_W

@ Life, theuniverse, everything

As I said a couple of times, I'm trying to be as nice as I can in the interest of keeping this discussion civil.

But if you are talking about "pro-registry people" then you are talking about me, in whch case, your statement at #12 does not apply.

I object when people with an opposing viewpoint make assumptions, and I also object when people arguing vewpoints similar to mine do the same thing. So no offense, but can we take a few steps back, please?

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:20

#30

Life, the unive...

Well unless you are trotting out the same kind of rhetoric as Mallick and those types of pro-registry people, which you haven't, my comments don't apply to you.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:22

#31

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Oh joy! Oh rapture! Oh rature! Oh bliss! I guess that means that the Liberals have given up on making any effort to win back Churchill, Western Arctic, Sudbury, Nickel Belt, Timmins James Bay, Thunder Bay-Rainy River, Thunder Bay Superior, Algoma etc... from the NDP.This is great news that the Liberals will now shift to a totally urban strategy and concede the north to the NDP! That's the best news i've heard in years.

As for NDP/Liberal swing voters, well there are two NDP MPs - Peter Stoffer and Jim Maloway who represent almost totally urban ridings in Halifax and Winnipeg, respectively and who oppose the gun registry. I suppose its possible that there some people in those ridings who won't likt ehe stance those MPs are taking (though the Liberals are so non-existent in those ridings that its hard to see it having much impact). Everywhere else in the cities, you have NDP MPs and candidates who support the gun registry - so you will have a choice of either voting for a pro-gun registry NDP candidate or a pro-gun registry Liberal candidate. Its hard to create a wedge where no wedge exists!

Stockholm, your analysis is too simplistic on this issue and doesn't take into account the general issue: left-of-centre voters across Canada may perceive the NDP as being the party that killed the registry and the Liberals as the party who tried to save it. You are trying to conduct a specific riding by riding prediction in your above analysis based on how individual MP's vote.

I am talking about a more general impression that could be left by the vote and by the media's interpretation of the NDP as helping the Conservatives kill it. Liberal-NDP voters who dislike the NDP's anti-gun registry vote may be turned off the NDP and vote Liberal in the next election to varying degrees across Canada, regardless of how their own NDP MP voted. For example, even though Olivia Chow will vote pro-registry, some swing voters in Trinity-Spadina may decide not to vote NDP in that riding and vote Liberal instead. This could happen in other ridings as well. That's what I'm getting at.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:46

#32

Stockholm

I think its far more likely that "left of centre voters" will be turned off by how the Liberals sabotaged a coalition with the NDP that could have saved canada from the past two years of Tory government and with how the Liberals have propped up the Harper government in exchange for NOTHING over 100 times!

Of course anything COULD happen - we are all just bouncing around hypotheses. Swing voters COULD all turn away from the Liberals because Ignatieff reminds them Count Chocula!

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:49

#33

Debater

The federal Liberals are launching a national campaign to save the long-gun registry. And they're aiming to co-opt NDP support to establish the Liberals as the only real alternative to the Harper Tories:

Liberals target gun registry

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:57

#34

Life, the unive...

We will see, I expect, that voters in fact will turn away from the Liberals in far greater numbers than they gain over this issue. This is going to go down as a huge strategic blunder, just like 'you're time is up" because like the Conservatives the Liberals are pitting rural and urban Canadians against each other and playing crass political games, while the NDP and Layton are trying to work from common ground, (and there is some). Despite all the Liberal partisan full court press by the usual suspects in the media most voters will not be fooled.

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:09

#35

Stockholm

Of course the Liberals are gambling heavily on the gun registry being scrapped in the vote on Sept. 22 so they can feign outrage. If Layton succeeds in convincing most of the NDP dissidents to vote against the PMB and the measure fails - then the Liberals will be stuck having to do major damage control.

I'm sure Ignatieff is praying that the registry gets scrapped so he can use his carefully crafted talking points - otherwise all that work will have gone for nought!

This is an interesting tidbit from today's Globe:

"Some in the NDP think the Conservatives would actually prefer if they lost the vote, so that they can continue to blame Liberal and NDP MPs in certain ridings of being against rural Canada.

Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer says the Conservatives had at least two prime opportunities during budget periods to eliminate the registry, but didn't do it.

“It would be an advantage to the Conservative if it failed because then they can go in the next election and say, you see, if we only get a majority we can get rid of this legislation,” Mr. Stoffer said."

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:12

#36

Life, the unive...

I got there first in post 12 though with that point.

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:21

#37

Fidel

Jeez! I didn't realize there is such a large divide between the party in phony minority government and that other one in phony opposition.

Wed, 2010-09-01 19:20

#38

melovesproles

Good for Angus. He was one of the MPs I was really surprised didn't see this for what it was straight from the start. I suppose he might have and saw this as the best route to go which is fair enough. This is a phony private members bill since the Cons are voting like a block and I'm sorry but if some NDP MPs would rather further Harper's rightwing agenda than respect the reasonable concerns of their progressive allies(both rural and urban, I live in a rural riding and it's bullshit to say we all like what Harper is doing on this)when it comes to scrapping the registry than they aren't really very good allies at all. Let's stop Harper and come up with a way to address the concerns of progressives who want to see the registry reformed. Angus has it right.

Wed, 2010-09-01 20:26

#39

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

melovesproles wrote:

Good for Angus. He was one of the MPs I was really surprised didn't see this for what it was straight from the start. I suppose he might have and saw this as the best route to go which is fair enough. This is a phony private members bill since the Cons are voting like a block and I'm sorry but if some NDP MPs would rather further Harper's rightwing agenda than respect the reasonable concerns of their progressive allies(both rural and urban, I live in a rural riding and it's bullshit to say we all like what Harper is doing on this)when it comes to scrapping the registry than they aren't really very good allies at all. Let's stop Harper and come up with a way to address the concerns of progressives who want to see the registry reformed. Angus has it right.

This, yes.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:19

#40

writer

Apologies if this has already posted. Didn't see it if so.

Quote:

... Another Tory MP, James Bezan, posted a folksy video on YouTube in which he expresses fear that the 12 NDP MPs will change their vote. Bezan, wearing a cowboy hat and a plaid shirt, is shot on top of his horse, “Woody.” The video was removed from the site Wednesday, but reposted anonymously later in the day by someone who had captured it.

... Mr. Angus says the rhetoric being used by the Conservatives is turning him and others off ...

Mr. Angus adds that Conservatives have campaigned on the gun-registry issue in NDP ridings, targeting them with negative advertising.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-no-allies-on-gun-regis...'re no allies on gun registry, NDP tells Tories[/url]

Edited to clean up massive script that came from planet Zotar.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:20

#41

ottawaobserver

Unionist wrote:

I seem to recall praising Jack's statement immediately after, when a working link was posted. It's still a fine statement, and I wish more people here supported it.

Indeed you did. Subsequently someone else (I forget who, and I'm sorry but I forgot just now to look it up), cited your questioning my 404'ed link as an indication that you didn't take me at my word or something like that (again I should have checked the wording precisely), because weirdly the original link was working again by then, and so your question no longer made sense to that reader. Big misunderstanding. No big deal.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:22

#42

KenS

Youve seen nothing yet my puny Earthlings.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:27

#43

writer

Heh. Comment on Maclean's:

"If its tied, I hope Helena gets up, flips Harper the bird and votes with the Opposition."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/01/he-rides-again/

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:38

#44

Bookish Agrarian

writer wrote:

Apologies if this has already posted. Didn't see it if so.

Quote:

... Another Tory MP, James Bezan, posted a folksy video on YouTube in which he expresses fear that the 12 NDP MPs will change their vote. Bezan, wearing a cowboy hat and a plaid shirt, is shot on top of his horse, “Woody.” The video was removed from the site Wednesday, but reposted anonymously later in the day by someone who had captured it.

... Mr. Angus says the rhetoric being used by the Conservatives is turning him and others off ...

Mr. Angus adds that Conservatives have campaigned on the gun-registry issue in NDP ridings, targeting them with negative advertising.

I once had a run-in with Bezan in front of a Parliamentary Committee. He is a piece of dirt.

Layton's proposal makes the most sense to me as someone who has followed this issue from the beginning. And that's not partisan. The extremist positions of the Liberals and Conservatives from different sides of the coin will not address the very real shortcomings of the long gun registery.

The most effective control we have in Canada on firearms is the PAL. Working with the PAL and strengthening that system might actually do some good and be effective. We are wasting so much time and energy on a registery that does not do what people think it does and ignoring the actual tools that do some good in controling firearms usage and who can and cannot buy them and ammunition. At this point I expect I am like most Canadians and don't much care anymore about the outcome of the vote. For me it is pretty obvious that whether or not the bill is defeated both the Liberals and the Conservatives are gearing up to play wedge politics and it is the Canadian people who will be the loser.

By the way I sent Charlie a personal note of thanks.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:44

#45

Unionist

Sorry I've been away and haven't seen the news. Will Charlie Angus vote against Bill C-391 now - or abstain - or not show up? I can't tell by reading the stories.

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:47

#46

Bookish Agrarian

He is hinting very strongly he will vote against the bill, but has not explicitly said so. Does that help U?

Wed, 2010-09-01 21:48

#47

writer

Unionist, the subhead on the Globe piece reads, "Rural MPs who oppose registry distance themselves from Conservatives, with Charlie Angus saying he’ll change his vote altogether" but I could find no corresponding quote that clearly illustrates this position in the body of the story.

Wed, 2010-09-01 22:08

#48

Aristotleded24

No Yards wrote:
Stockholm wrote:
If we want to start getting into the trap of "you must vote for this because it SAVES LIVES" then hold on to your hats for when the Tories start bringing all kinds of three-strikes you're out "tough on crime" policies that will be endlessly justfied on the basis that they "save lives" because as long as perpetrators are in jail forever - they cannot kill anyone. There will be endless examples of so-and so who was on parole and killed someone - if we just got rid of parole and made everyone serve their full sentence - a life would have been saved!!

Do you really want to start going down that road?
Finally, something that Stockholm disagrees with Layton on ... you are aware that it is Jack himself that made this claim, and would presumably be the message he is (pretending he is) bringing to the 12 NDP MPs who would vote against the registry?

You missed Stockholm's point completely.

If you take out the partisan players, the line that some pro-registry people use is the same as the tough-on-crime crowd: "this policy (whether gun control or 3 strikes rules) saves lives, so if you are against it, you are against saving lives." You're framing it in the exact same way.

No Yards wrote:
That said, it may be that by the time any elections come by no one will remember the Cons and NDP voting together to kill the registry and Layton doing nothing to prevent it ... if I were a loyaly to the end Dipper that's what I would be hoping for in Quebec.

Certainly what the victims went through was very painful, and their voices need to be heard in the justice system. However, their voices should not trump in public policy. Plus, saving the gun registry will not bring back or un-wound all those affected by Polytechnique.

Or if you want to say we should grant victims veto power, here's [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/10/09/de-delley.html]another high-profile victim fighting for change:[/url]

Quote:
The mother of a Manitoba man who was brutally killed on a Greyhound bus this summer says it is "not acceptable" that the man charged in her son's death could be found not criminally responsible, and be put in an institution rather than receive a prison sentence.

...

Still, de Delley says if someone is found not criminally responsible, there should be no possibility — however remote — of future release.

"My goal at this point today is to raise the awareness that this is a possible outcome," she said.

"My reason for doing this is to make the public aware that under our current system, that is very likely what could happen unless we all speak up and say that this is not acceptable."

Wed, 2010-09-01 22:27

#49

6079_Smith_W

@ Aristotleded24

I don't want to distract this thread, but some of the things that happened in the wake of that Manitoba case were truly surprising, especially since it involved a case of a person found not criminally responsible.

I feel terrible for the family of the man he killed, but the things that happened in the media (pressuring the province to not let his assailant go outside) was simply a travesty.

I know the media has a right and a responsibility to cover what goes on, but some of the coverage I saw seemed almost exploitative.

Wed, 2010-09-01 23:41

#50

ottawaobserver

They're all getting ready to compete with Sun TV, I fear, 6079_Smith.

Thu, 2010-09-02 07:09

#51

Debater

Here's a column in Now Toronto which highlights the challenge Layton is facing:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=176563

"Under normal circumstances, Layton’s urge to compromise has great charm, but leaving this particular matter to suasion is not a nod to party democracy and the power of consensus – it’s brinkmanship pure and simple, and it trifles with the sacred."

"Sorry, but this is not a free vote matter; this is social dem hardcore. It’s about protecting the public realm, and there’s a mess of young dead bodies in Toronto to prove it."

Pages

Topic locked