As to Charlie Angus' intentions: he said what he wanted to say in the story.
And its very explicit: its not just about how people (in the end) vote.
The firearm registry saga - II
Thu, 2010-09-02 07:45
#52
Thu, 2010-09-02 07:47
#53
Yes, trust NOW to know and hew to the (real) social democratic principles.
Thu, 2010-09-02 08:47
#54
There's more than one person expressing anger at the NDP's position. Here is Heather Mallick's column:
Mallick: Jack Layton and guns: I've had enough
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/855091--mallick-jack-layton-and-g...
Thu, 2010-09-02 09:08
#55
remind
FFS Debator that article was the OP in this thread, getting a little carried away in your propaganda shedding perhaps?
Thu, 2010-09-02 09:18
#56
Why the angry response, remind? I didn't notice that one was already posted. No need to swear.
And it's not propaganda. People concerned with gun violence who are turned off by the NDP's position on the gun registry are expressing themselves in the media, as they have the right to do. Try to show some objectivity.
Btw, today's new poll shows a drop in NDP support:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/01/ekos-poll-voter-intention.html
Thu, 2010-09-02 09:33
#57
Well Debater thanks for proving my point in post 43 that the Liberals are only interested in playing political games and wedge politics and do not give a rat's posterior about public saftey. This story hasn't been around long enough to be reflected in the polls and someone with you background knows this without a doubt. You know that any movement has more to do with the swings we have been seeing in the last year and a bit, but you instead try to play games.
There is really nothing to see besides a media that has lost all pretence of non-bias reporting given the way they continue to frame those who raise legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of the gun registry
Thu, 2010-09-02 09:47
#58
Let me see if I understand this correctly BA. Firearms owners are not objecting to a firearms registry but to how firearms owners are being portrayed in the media?
I have never understood why there is an objection to registering firearms when we are required to register so many other things including automobiles.
For what it is worth, yes, I have used firearms.
Thu, 2010-09-02 09:49
#59
The two pieces mentioned above (and there are a lot more than those out there) are not silly fluff pieces. They are written by women who are concerned about gun violence, particularly in the cities, and particularly against women.
And some of the other proponents of the registry are not just talking about it because they have nothing else to do - some of them are from families who have had people killed by gun violence. For example, Elaine Lumley, the mother whose son was killed by gun violence, and whose story is posted on the other thread.
Thu, 2010-09-02 10:02
#60
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."
I started tuning out at paragraph three when she started talking about the NDP "trifling with the sacred".
Good thing I read on to the end though. I was amused and a bit insulted to read her closing gambit - chiding Layton for caving in to "bruised masculinity" and then immediately playing to that same macho sentiment by telling him to "take the heat" and force his MPs to comply with the line "you either have vision or you don't".
Act like a man when we need you to act like a man and do what we say. I'm sure that would convince me in a hurry.
If we want to look at the facts she presented, the statistic she used - that 70 percent of weapons seized in Toronto were illegal - can easily be used as an argument for or against the registry. And her lurid image of a "mess of young dead bodies" (speaking of trifling with the sacred) which supposedly proves something? One presumes those people were killed with the registry already in place - some of them with the illegal weapons mentioned, and one or two of them by cops.
I don't object to arguments in favour of keeping the registry. As I said, I support it, though I think it needs to be changed. What pisses me off is these ignorant arguments which do little other than insult me and my intelligence.
@ Caissa
Please go back and read some of my posts in this thread and the last, because I am quite specific about my objections. I just don't want to have to repeat myself a fourth time. This is not just like registering your car.
Thu, 2010-09-02 10:06
#61
I was speaking to BA. I was not making an analogy about registering your car. I used it as something we register. I am most interested in his comment that the objection was more to the rhetoric of the registry debate than to the registry itself. I hope he will elaborate on that statement because it intrigued me.
Thu, 2010-09-02 10:18
#62
Layton's leadership could be hurt by gun-registry vote
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/gun-08-30-2010
Thu, 2010-09-02 11:46
#63
Incidently, I am starting to think one of the major problems in this debate is that many of the proponents have never used a firearm, tried to buy one, or buy ammunition. They are basing all of their understanding of the issue on what others say about these things- not the reality. If they did they would understand that it is not nearly so easy to get one under the PAL system as they think.
At the same time firearm owners are reacting not only to the substance of having a registry, but emotionally to the way they are portrayed in the media and by many registry proponents- you need only read the two pieces of silly fluff masquarding as thoughtful prose that Debater linked to to understand the hyperbolic rhetoric they are subjected too. This puts peoples backs up and they react emotionally.
And in the end nothing gets solved. The wedge politics continues. And no one is one iota safer.
Thu, 2010-09-02 11:49
#64
remind
another double posting of an article formerly linked to debator....
Liberals certainly are a nasty piece of work all the way around, and I agree with you BA, playing politics while not giving a damn.
Thu, 2010-09-02 11:52
#65
I was speaking to BA. I was not making an analogy about registering your car. I used it as something we register. I am most interested in his comment that the objection was more to the rhetoric of the registry debate than to the registry itself. I hope he will elaborate on that statement because it intrigued me.
I was typing quickly- it should have read, not ONLY reacting. There are substantive concerns, but there is also a great deal of emotive reaction to the type of rhetoric being used. Which than closes their ears and minds to the legitimate concerns being raised about male violence and the misues of firearms to control women. Read Mallick's and the Now pieces to get a sense of the hyperbole rhetoric as they become puffery because of the way they are written, not the types of issues they say they are addressing.
Thu, 2010-09-02 11:57
#66
James Bezan sends out pamphlets right before every election insisting that the NDP supports the gun registry, and they are printed up to look like they come from us. They have definitely hurt our election chances in the last 3 elections. I'm glad Jack is not whipping this vote. supporting the registry is political suicide in rural ridings. Bezan is a lying A-hole.
Thu, 2010-09-02 13:08
#67
No Yards
Question. Let's say the same political scenario was happening, only with a different issue and different party ... let say that for whatever reason our Public Health Care system was under attack by a private members bill, and it was the Conservatives that were in exactly the same "balance of power" position that the NDP are concerning the registry.
So, let's suppose the conservatives have 12 members that were the deciding votes, and their currently known position was that they were going to cast votes that would kill the health care system.
Harper was in the meantime all over the media claiming he was totally for the public health care system because he knew that it saved lives, but because it was a PMB he was not going to interfere with his MPs and whip them to save the health care system.
Would the Layton supporters be praising Harper for his democratic stand for democracy or his wonderful political strategy? Would every one who currently believes Layton is doing the right thing be, if not praising Harper, be defending his lack of action as "leadership"?
Just wondering.
Thu, 2010-09-02 14:37
#68
writer
I think the Tories might be unleashing some rage they won't be able to manage / package / twist. I think we can't really predict where this is heading. This from Angus's Facebook page, linking to the ridiculous Bezan + horse video:
Woody the Horse on the gun registry. Why do the Tories act like us rural folks are dumb hicks? I'm going to invite Woody the horse to meet the workers at Vale and Xstrata who were ripped off thanks to the Tories. Maybe invite Woody to visit our mill towns and farm towns that have taken a shit-kicking under the Tories.
Edited to add: Unionist - this CBC story was also posted to his page (with no comment on the headline):
NDP MP to flip his vote on long-gun registry
"At this point, I am certainly not going to be standing beside Garry Breitkreuz trying to tell rural Canadians that the police are coming to steal their guns in the middle of the night. That's extreme," said Angus. "And that's not where I'll be standing at the end of the day. So you can infer from that however you want, but that's where I am going right now."
...The MP for Timmins-James Bay adds that the Conservatives have not brought any evidence refuting recently released reports that indicate the registry is now efficient and useful.
"The fact that the Conservatives tried to hide these reports. If the Conservatives ... say that the police are a malevolent force and they expect me to base public policy based on lies or suppression of evidence; I cannot support a bill if it does not have evidence behind it," said Angus.
However, Angus said he is focused on a compromise bill NDP Leader Jack Layton has suggested that will take into account the concerns of his rural constituents, while maintaining the registry.
Thu, 2010-09-02 15:25
#69
writer- just wanted to say how much I appreciate the tone and message in your posts.
I have this innate feeling that if you and I, or people like us, were given the task of sorting this mess out we could probably do it in an afternoon over a couple of iced teas. Respect for concerns on both sides could solve the few outstanding issues in a heartbeat, but far too many politicians have no interest in this issue beside the wedge it provides them.
eta- it is important to note that Charlie Angus is not saying that he no longer believes that there are problems with the long gun registery- but rather that the Conservatives, and Liberals for that matter are not interested in addressing the legitimate concerns of all Canadians, both urban and rural, aboriginal hunters and women's advocates and so on.
Which sounds eerily familar LOL
Thu, 2010-09-02 15:31
#70
writer
Yes, that's what I get from everything I've read, too. Very principled. Very clear.
Hey, and thanks for the kind words. It can be so easy to get into the culture of yelling at each other, sure in our own skins. Sure, and lonely, and feeling misunderstood.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:01
#71
Here is an interesting interview with Robin Sears on The Mark about how Layton is handling this issue. I agree one thousand percent with everything he says here:
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/2225-layton-prefers-compromise-not-d...
Robin Sears, Senior Partner at Navigator Ltd. and former National Director of the New Democratic Party, spoke to The Mark about how the leader of the NDP has handled the divisions within his own party on the upcoming long-gun registry vote with a proposed compromise for urban and rural regions.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:50
#72
I guess this explains why he whipped the vote in support of Harper's crime bill, since the caucus wasn't "divided" (with the honorable exception of Bill Siksay).
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:51
#73
I guess this explains why he whipped the vote in support of Harper's crime bill, since the caucus wasn't "divided" (with the honorable exception of Bill Siksay).
He was wrong to whip the bill, but the fact that he was able to tells me that the caucus (or at least those who can clearly see through the tough-on-crime charade) didn't stand up as forcefully as they should have.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:52
#74
There's a big difference between one dissident and 12 - and I assume Siksay was willing to take his punishment and wasn't threatening to sit as an Independent etc...
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:54
#75
There's a big difference between one dissident and 12
My point exactly.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:58
#76
There's a big difference between one dissident and 12 - and I assume Siksay was willing to take his punishment and wasn't threatening to sit as an Independent etc...
If all the other parties unanimously supported it plus the bulk of the NDP caucus, why whip the vote? What principle was involved?
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:07
#77
Parties in Canada usually try to achieve consensus on issues as opposed to having a US-style system where everyone votes as they please and party labels are almost meaningless. There was a near unanimous consensus on the crime bill. In the case of the gun registry, there is no consensus whatsoever and the caucus is split down the middle.
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:39
#78
No Yards
There's a big difference between one dissident and 12My point exactly.
There is a political difference, but if Jack really believes that the registry saves lives, then 1 or 12 should not make a difference.
If everything is going to be a "political" calculation, then Jack should stop claiming this is somehow doing politics differently.
Yes, Jack is in a tough position, even a "no-win" situation ...so he's going to pick "votes" over doing what he feels will save lives? ... sorry, but I'd have much more respect for Jack if he just came clean and said he was whipping the vote knowing full well that some of his members were going to defy the whip, then tell them there would be consequences for defying the whip, but he would understand if they felt that the pressure from the members constituents were more important than any punishment they might receive for their refusal to be whipped (he can then work behind the scenes to entice the 12 to change their position.)
Jack thinks the registry saves lives? Good, then he should be willing to take some heat in an effort to protect the registry ... the 12 MPs believe that their 'constituents will' is more important that the lives that might be saves? Good as well, then they should be more than willing to accept whatever punishment they will receive for defying the whip ... Siksay deserves lots of credit for proving the conviction of his beliefs ... the 12 anti-registry MPs may have those convictions as well, but I guess we'll never know because that might tarnish Jacks veil of leadership and that seems to be the "important" issue here.
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:43
#79
The NDP is not the Tory party under Harper where the leader is an absolute dictator. Jack is the leader and his voice carried a lot of weight but he doesn't have the entire party and caucus at his beck and call.
Another difference with the crime bill is that Siksay and others did not campaign on a promise to oppose tough on crime legislation and the BC NDP has not taken a position as a party that is 100% against being tough on crime. In contrast, with the gun registry, you have entire provincial sections of the party across the Prairies opposed to the registry.
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:49
#80
No Yards
Parties in Canada usually try to achieve consensus on issues as opposed to having a US-style system where everyone votes as they please and party labels are almost meaningless. There was a near unanimous consensus on the crime bill. In the case of the gun registry, there is no consensus whatsoever and the caucus is split down the middle.
"down the middle"? .. Yeah, support is split, but let's not pretend 66% = 33%.
P.S. I was mistaken about the Rivier du-Loup riding and their Conservative past ... I misread an article on CPAC, should have checked directly with Elections Canada (looks like it have more of a Lib and (more recently) BQ history than a PC history) ... either way though, it's unlikely that the registry had much to do with the election of the Cons, and even if it did, and every rural Quebec riding went Con because of the registry, the places where the NDP have any hope in hell in Quebec would likely have the complete opposite result (ie: the NDP being seen as killing the registry would not be "helpful" in those Quebec ridings to say the least.)
Thu, 2010-09-02 21:23
#81
writer
I'm finding myself in a strange place over the last couple of days. I have never touched a gun. They repulse me. I am a survivor of violence, and I'm a vegetarian. My uncle stabbed himself to death in front of my aunt. He did it to save her from his increasingly violent mood swings, which followed a kind of stroke. That, and he couldn't stand being so debilitated. I'm glad he didn't have a gun on hand. I live with someone who never met one of his uncles, because he died as a child, when his brother accidently shot him during a hunting trip. The boys' father took the blame, died early of a heart attack, and their mother never recovered emotionally. So, there you go.
But I find myself increasingly disturbed by the notion that there is nothing to hear about the concerns of these 12 MPs. Maybe if they had a sense that their concerns *were being heard* and we're behind the notion of revising the registry, instead of jumping all over them for not seeing things exactly our way? I mean, what the hell do I know about the registry, and why it's a problem / concern / issue? I have no need for it, and no interest in it, other than its role in making society safer. The whole notion of having a gun makes me feel sick. It seems like a no-brainer to me, and I don't understand why it is a big deal to register guns. But the more I think about Chuck Angus and Nikki Ashton struggling with this, the more I realize there's something that's being shouted over.
And that's just not my notion of democracy.
I read a letter from a Montreal police rep, and I despair. I do not want our MPs to be troops. I do not want a military model in Parliament. I want more democracy, not less. I want more humanity, not militarization. This is democracy. Messy, maddening, democracy. The more time goes by, the more impressed I am with Layton standing behind that notion, even if I truly wish each and every one of those MPs would just vote against this stupid, manipulative "private" bill.
"[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/appeal+Jack+Layton/3474860/story.html#ixz.... Layton, behave like a statesman and impose that your troops vote in favour of maintaining full registry of firearms, including long guns.[/url]"
No. Not in my name. I want representatives of the people in the House. Not troops. I want a real solution, with people listening to each other. Not resentments building, hands forced, and an alienation from government growing, only to be exploited by those who want to diminish the role we can play for each other. The society we could build, if only we dared to trust in it, to work for it.
Thu, 2010-09-02 21:29
#82
No Yards
The NDP is not the Tory party under Harper where the leader is an absolute dictator. Jack is the leader and his voice carried a lot of weight but he doesn't have the entire party and caucus at his beck and call.
Another difference with the crime bill is that Siksay and others did not campaign on a promise to oppose tough on crime legislation and the BC NDP has not taken a position as a party that is 100% against being tough on crime. In contrast, with the gun registry, you have entire provincial sections of the party across the Prairies opposed to the registry.
So the NDP should disband and the MPs can just vote as independents ... they certainly don't need an official leader if all it means is a "weighty" voice.
I think the question was asked already (and never answered AFAIK,) but in the case of the omnibus bill, why was it necessary to whip the vote if there was only one person against the Cons bill? There must have been some chance that the needed dozen or so NDP votes required by the Cons was not going to be there otherwise Jack could have just let the 35 NDP MPs vote their "for the Tory crime bill" will. So, seems to me that the vast majority of NDP MPs did not want to vote for that bill, otherwise there would be no need to whip that vote .. also obviously the NDP caucus was "split" at that time as well.
So, in the case of the omnibus bill Jack whipped a split caucus and there was 1 holdout that didn't obey the whip ... in this case there number of holdouts might be more or less, but the same situation applies, Jack acted like an "absolute dictator" then, but now that suddenly becomes unacceptable?
Thu, 2010-09-02 21:41
#83
writer- again thank you so much. What is true for those MPs is also true for rural progressives. We see the problems and know solutions can be found, but no room is allowed us in this discussion. If we try to raise those concerns, because we see how they are being abused by the forces of the right we are ignored, or more often mocked and attacked. Thank you again for such a personal and heart-felt post.
Thu, 2010-09-02 21:45
#84
No Yards
But I find myself increasingly disturbed by the notion that there is nothing to hear about the concerns of these 12 MPs. Maybe if they had a sense that their concerns *were being heard* and we're behind the notion of revising the registry, instead of jumping all over them for not seeing things exactly our way? I mean, what the hell do I know about the registry, and why it's a problem / concern / issue? I have no need for it, and no interest in it, other than its role in making society safer. The whole notion of having a gun makes me feel sick. It seems like a no-brainer to me, and I don't understand why it is a big deal to register guns. But the more I think about Chuck Angus and Nikki Ashton struggling with this, the more I realize there's something that's being shouted over.
And that's just not my notion of democracy.
I don't totally disagree with you, there are valid concerns regarding the registry. I don't agree with all of their concerns, but some I do, and I have no issue with reopening the registry debate to have those concerns studied and addressed.
I actually have a lot of respect for how Angus is handling this issue, he's doing what Jack should be doing, using his voting powers in an attempt to force the Cons to take the logical path to fixing a system that saves lives but still has some flaws.
My problem is not a case of wanting to ignore those concerns ... my problem is how cowardly, self-serving, unprincipled, and arbitrary Jack is in his use of the power of the whipped vote. He's not going to be able to fix a system that no longer exists, and unless he's also a damn liar and really doesn't want the registry system to survive, then his actions to this point are completely illogical, except maybe as a way to protect his "leadership" against personal embarrassment (and I never though of Jack as being illogical or a damned liar, so I must assume this is about him and how people will view his leadership status.)
Thu, 2010-09-02 21:55
#85
I'm very impressed with writer's post here as well. I totally agree that rather than people attacking Layton for not "whipping" his MPs etc... (the whole "whipping" terminology is kind of creepy) - we should be having dialogue with the rural MPs and we would be trying to understand their perspective etc...Ideally "whipping" should never be necessary and all the caucus members can be convinced to support the gun registry of their own volition.
I usually like most of what Heather Mallick writes - but her column yesterday was really out of bounds and was so dripping with with condescension and was so insulting and dismissive of anyone who didn't agree with her that I just hope it wasn't read by too many of the "dirty dozen" - i think if I were an NDP MP from northern Ontario who was starting to reconsider my support of the Hoeppner Bill - just reading articles like Mallick's as well as the one in NOW would be enough to make me go back to wanting to see the gun registry scrapped!! I wonder how Nikki Ashton or Carol Hughes feel after reading a screed by a couple of downtown Toronto "luminaries" essentially accusing them of supporting violence against women if they oppose the gun registry.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:01
#86
My problem is not a case of wanting to ignore those concerns ... my problem is how cowardly, self-serving, unprincipled, and arbitrary Jack is in his use of the power of the whipped vote. He's not going to be able to fix a system that no longer exists, and unless he's also a damn liar and really doesn't want the registry system to survive, then his actions to this point are completely illogical, except maybe as a way to protect his "leadership" against personal embarrassment (and I never though of Jack as being illogical or a damned liar, so I must assume this is about him and how people will view his leadership status.)
Can we take a step back here?
I understand you are kind of hot about this issue (frankly some of the things I have read in here make me pretty angry too), but I don't see what Layton is doing as cowardly, self-serving, or unprincipled. While you are entitled to your opinion I object to seeing a very difficult decision dismissed with those words simply because he did not make the decision you wanted.
Furthermore, while we can talk about this for the next two weeks I don't think this discussion (WRT his decision) is going anywhere because that train has left the station.
I sympathize with a lot of your concerns, and I think most of us here agree on much of this issue, but I am also aware of my personal objections to the registry as it stands, as well as many people who (rightly or wrongly) feel much more strongly. If the support is not there then it is not there, and trying to pour cement all over it is not going to change that.
Being a leader isn't just holding the line on a principle any more than it is selling out to the people ('cause they sure don't respect that either) but it is about showing them respect and trust.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:02
#87
I actually have a lot of respect for how Angus is handling this issue, he's doing what Jack should be doing, using his voting powers in an attempt to force the Cons to take the logical path to fixing a system that saves lives but still has some flaws.
That could never happen for two simple reasons. Firstly, Angus's words carry some weight because he was previously in favour of the PMB to scrap the gun registry and is now saying he will switch sides. For Jack to do that he would have to have done something that is unimaginable - he would have to have been previously in favour of scrapping the gun registry and to now be having second thoughts and trying to strike a bargain with Harper!
Secondly, let's face it - the Tories have no incentive whatsoever to budge one milimeter on this issue. In fact, dep down the Tories WANT the Hoeppner bill to fail by two or three votes - that way they can continue to attack the Liberal-NDP-BQ "coalition" (sic.) for sabotaging the bill, they can keep getting lots of donations and volunteers by continuing to promise to ge rid of the registry in the future AND they can go on the attack in rural ridings with Liberal or NDP MPs who voted to keep the registry. The Tories don't really want the registry to die because once its gone they can no longer keep getting votes by promising to get rid of it!
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:06
#88
that's exactly right Stock- the Conservatives are already gearing up for the failure of the bill. The Liberals fell into a trap and have screwed up yet again on long term strategy.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:08
#89
No Yards
I wonder how Nikki Ashton or Carol Hughes feel after reading a screed by a couple of downtown Toronto "luminaries" essentially accusing them of supporting violence against women if they oppose the gun registry.
Given the evidence suggesting that these "downtown Toronto luminaries" are correct, one would think that they would consider their "screed" carefully.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:11
#90
writer
If this vote isn't whipped, none should be. I'm tired of hearing about the traditions around private members bills, etc. It is very clear that opposition has not developed an intelligent strategy around this minority government. And I will forever be disgusted with the "strategy" around tough-on-crime. Plain stupid. Thank goodness for Bill Siksay.
I just think there is something going on around this bill that we don't fully understand. And, without the information, it's seductive to jump to black-and-white thinking, where persuasion and support for these MPs might go further. Let them know that we've got their backs, if they vote down this bill. That we'll show their rural voters that we give a shit. You know?
Jack isn't our country. We are.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:15
#91
Do you care to provide evidence that being against the gun registry ipso-facto makes a person supportive of violence against women??? This is starting to sound to me like "either you support the invasion of Iraq or you must be a supporter of terrorism"!
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:16
#92
I would add that if we want solutions on this issue and others find a way to support these MPs in the next election and to find other rural NDP candidates that can articulate an approach markedly different from the Conserveratives and get behind them too. Many of these candidates can compete on message, but are outspent to a ridiculous degree. In the end that is the only long term strategy for real change.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:19
#93
I just think there is something going on around this bill that we don't fully understand. And, without the information, it's seductive to jump to black-and-white thinking, where persuasion and support for these MPs might go further. Let them know that we've got their backs, if they vote down this bill. That we'll show their rural voters that we give a shit. You know?
I agree 100%. Its not as if this was some open and shut good against evil issue where the only people wanting to end the long gun registry were a bunch of Sarah Palin type rightwing crackpots. There are some very progressive people whose opinions I respect who genuinely oppose the gun registry - they don't just oppose it because think it will help them get re-elected - they oppose it because they actually think its bad public policy! I think we should try to understand where those people are coming from rather than heaping abuse and ad hominem insults on them.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:27
#94
No Yards
I actually have a lot of respect for how Angus is handling this issue, he's doing what Jack should be doing, using his voting powers in an attempt to force the Cons to take the logical path to fixing a system that saves lives but still has some flaws.
That could never happen for two simple reasons. Firstly, Angus's words carry some weight because he was previously in favour of the PMB to scrap the gun registry and is now saying he will switch sides. For Jack to do that he would have to have done something that is unimaginable - he would have to have been previously in favour of scrapping the gun registry and to now be having second thoughts and trying to strike a bargain with Harper!
No, he would simply have to whip the vote to save the registry and offer to change that vote if the Cons agree to a compromise and address the flaws ... if not, then the NDP save the registry and condemn the Cons for totally ignoring urban concerns and not wanting to really address the issues of rural firearm owners.
Secondly, let's face it - the Tories have no incentive whatsoever to budge one milimeter on this issue. In fact, dep down the Tories WANT the Hoeppner bill to fail by two or three votes - that way they can continue to attack the Liberal-NDP-BQ "coalition" (sic.) for sabotaging the bill, they can keep getting lots of donations and volunteers by continuing to promise to ge rid of the registry in the future AND they can go on the attack in rural ridings with Liberal or NDP MPs who voted to keep the registry. The Tories don't really want the registry to die because once its gone they can no longer keep getting votes by promising to get rid of it!
I agree that the Cons (let's not call this group of Reformers and back-stabbing traitors "Tories" shall we?) are not really interested in scrapping the registry, but I don't see that as a good reason to actually scrap the registry. But the fact is that if the registry gets scrapped, it will fall on the NDP as the party responsible for that happening.
If Layton does get the 12 MPs to vote against the bill, the rural NDP constituencies are in hot water .. if he allows the 12 MPs to kill the registry, then the 24 other NDP MPs are in hot water ... the only real way out of this is to turn the decision over to the Cons. Whip the vote with an offer to help the Cons address the flaws in the registry ... if they refuse, then the NDP can save the registry placing blame on the Cons for not really wanting to address the problems rural voters see with the registry, or if they do agree, then the whole registry issues goes away.
The path that Layton is taking is just playing right into the Cons hands without so much as a whimper "if you don't agree to fix the flaws, then we'll hand you a victory and take the fall for you" ... how does that make any sense?
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:33
#95
I agree 100%. Its not as if this was some open and shut good against evil issue where the only people wanting to end the long gun registry were a bunch of Sarah Palin type rightwing crackpots. There are some very progressive people whose opinions I respect who genuinely oppose the gun registry - they don't just oppose it because think it will help them get re-elected - they oppose it because they actually think its bad public policy! I think we should try to understand where those people are coming from rather than heaping abuse and ad hominem insults on them.
There are plenty of people who just don't think their guns are anyone's business, but there are many others who DO support the principle of gun control, but who object to the fact that there are things in the current legislation which are an attack on us, and which frankly harm the legislation.
And furthermore, the whole way in which the Liberals brought it in (with Allan Rock saying he felt that NO ONE should have guns) did more to create that climate of resistance than anything the Tories have done since. It is frankly galling to have these legitimate concerns dismissed, or worse, attacked as arrogant individualism and an undermining of public safety.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:37
#96
Your strategy is totally flawed.
The Conservatives have zero interest in fixing the registry.
Your strategy is a big FU to rural Canada becuase you would be saying we don't give a crap about your concerns- only the concerns of urban Canadians matter. Layton is the only one showing any leadership by saying that he believes that on balance the registry is worth the problems, but is secure enough in his leadership to say I understand your concerns and will let you express them and at the same time offering up a way to build bridges between people of good intent. Despite what you continue to say- Layton is the only leader worthy of the name.
Do you really think there is no price to pay for your absolutist postion? The Liberals are about to find out.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:39
#97
No Yards
Do you care to provide evidence that being against the gun registry ipso-facto makes a person supportive of violence against women??? This is starting to sound to me like "either you support the invasion of Iraq or you must be a supporter of terrorism"!
I didn't "ipso-facto" anything ... I said given the evidence they should seriously consider the complaint.
But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:49
#98
So, in the case of the omnibus bill Jack whipped a split caucus and there was 1 holdout that didn't obey the whip ... in this case there number of holdouts might be more or less, but the same situation applies, Jack acted like an "absolute dictator" then, but now that suddenly becomes unacceptable?
The caucus could not have been that badly split if Layton was able to whip the vote. Perhaps if other caucus members had gritted their teeth and said, "no Jack, we won't go along with it," then the vote would not have been whipped.
I wonder how Nikki Ashton or Carol Hughes feel after reading a screed by a couple of downtown Toronto "luminaries" essentially accusing them of supporting violence against women if they oppose the gun registry.Given the evidence suggesting that these "downtown Toronto luminaries" are correct, one would think that they would consider their "screed" carefully.
And you wonder why the Conservatives get away with bashing the "urban elite" when talking to rural voters?
The path that Layton is taking is just playing right into the Cons hands without so much as a whimper "if you don't agree to fix the flaws, then we'll hand you a victory and take the fall for you" ... how does that make any sense?
Because as has been pointed out, the Conservatives don't want the registry to die. As Charlie Angus pointed out, the main rural issue that the Cons talk about is the gun registry, so as long as it's in place, they can campaign against the Liberals and NDP on it. Without the gun registry, they have nothing to run on, and that gives an opening for the NDP to take away rural seats from the Conservatives.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:50
#99
If Layton does get the 12 MPs to vote against the bill, the rural NDP constituencies are in hot water .. if he allows the 12 MPs to kill the registry, then the 24 other NDP MPs are in hot water ... the only real way out of this is to turn the decision over to the Cons. Whip the vote with an offer to help the Cons address the flaws in the registry ... if they refuse, then the NDP can save the registry placing blame on the Cons for not really wanting to address the problems rural voters see with the registry, or if they do agree, then the whole registry issues goes away.
The path that Layton is taking is just playing right into the Cons hands without so much as a whimper "if you don't agree to fix the flaws, then we'll hand you a victory and take the fall for you" ... how does that make any sense?
First of all, you're being very simplistic by saying that either 12 MPs get into hot water or else the other 24 get into hot water. A lot of the 24 MPs who support keeping the gun registry are gaining NOTHING in their ridings by doing so. To the extent that its an issue at all on the pro-registry side - its really only hypothetically an issue in three or four ridings in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. I doubt very much if Linda Duncan from Edmonton or Jack Harris from St. John's or any of the Hamilton MPs who all support keeping the registry see their stance as a vote winner. At best its just a neutral factor. This issue is a factor in rural ridings with a lot of gun owners who vote NDP and its possibily a factor in two or three Toronto and Montreal ridings where there are a few "opinion leaders" beating the drums to keep the registry - everywhere else its an issue that's barely in the radar screen or is a wash.
Whipping the vote was never an option for the simple reason that most of the 12 MPs would have defied the whip on principle. The PMB would have passed and the NDP would be in a real crisis! I think people are being delusional is they think that all Layton has to do is snap his fingers and say "I whip the vote" and suddenly 36 out of 36 NDP MPs stand up in unison to vote down the Hoeppner bill.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:51
#100
writer
It's partly how the Liberals are "playing" this that has me convinced there's something else we can tap into. The Liberals have been stunningly inept as the Opposition. They are treating this as a quick-fix way of gaining the moral upper hand that will sweep them back into power as the Natural Governing Party.There is no reason to believe they are not on their way to missing yet another boat.
There is something deep in my gut saying that their posturing is just that, and will get them as far as tinny, superficial posturing gets them, whereas the NDP position seems to be deeply felt, as frustrating as it might be.
There is something going on. It would be great if we could listen to each other, respond in a way that represents the kind of democracy we'd like to see (not sit back and bicker about the leader, who is only one person, who has made his decision, who cannot force his MPs to attend the day of the vote - as is true for the Liberals), and truly shake things up.
Taking turns riding the big high horse will only get us so far in this journey.
Thu, 2010-09-02 22:55
#101
But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?
I was referring specifically to columns by Heather Mallick and in NOW magazine - Mallick lives in downtown Toronto and by virtue of writing columns in the Star would be flattered to be called a "luminary" and NOW is the quintessential downtown Toronto alternative newspaper. I'm not being derisive - I'm just stating a fact.