NDP MPs disciplined for long-gun registry vote

@ Unionist

Agreed on the protocol, though there is a dispute as to whether it was whipped or not and who knew.

That as much as anything else is something they need to get in order, and it's good that they learn that lesson on an issue like this, rather than on a vote in which the result might be at stake.

I'm not trying to defend their position or anyone's position, Unionist.

Though there is some dispute and confusion even here on whether it should or shouldn't have been, given the last vote on this issue, even though the circumstances this time around are quite different (and I acknowleged that in my first post here).

I am saying that if it has the appearance of a gong show, that in itself is a problem. 

[url=http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/actualite_nationale/registre_des_armes_a_... solidaire joins with victims' groups, women's groups, and members of the National Assembly to ask Québec government to launch court action to safeguard the registry and its database[/url]

Thanks for the very detailed explanation of the rural situation, BA, and for your sincere discussion of this issue.

I gather some additional automatic weapons are being removed from the registry in the provisions of this bill versus Candice Hoeppner's in the last Parliament. Do you know anything about that, or what kind of weapons those were which are now being deregulated?

Thanks OO

I know that on places like facebook and other spots there are these things going around claiming that certain automatic weapons will now be de-listed as restricted weapons.  Frankly though, as much as I would love something to go back at the Conservatives on, I don't see any real concrete evidence that this is in fact the case.  Maybe it's there and I've missed it, but what I have seem presented isn't particularly compelling given what I know about how one actually goes about aquiring a firearm in Canada. 

Someone like me is never going to please the extremists on both sides, (lord do I know that!), but I think if we are going to make claims they should be backed up by solid evidence.  And I just don't see it.  A much bigger concern is the destruction of data, especially for those provinces who might want it.  That seems pretty clear and serves no purpose and is grounds for attacking the Conservative plan.  That said, doing what was publicly done to Rafferty and Hyer, is not warranted by that in my mind and is a major step backward in regards to taking the Conservatives out of government.  You can still vote against the registry and be critical of that provision.  Just like you can be solidly progressive and realize the registry was neither progressive nor effective in solving the issues we need to solve around gun crime and deterents and the societal scourage of violence agaisnt women.

BA, thanks for actually replying to the proposals I have been elaborating here for many years.

I'm pleased to note that you don't oppose my proposed ban on all individual firearms possession anywhere near a municipal area. That's a starting point, isn't it?

As for the need to shoot pests in the countryside (which I fully acknowledge), does that mean farmers should be free to buy and sell weapons? Of course not. There has to be a method of allowing [i]use[/i] without allowing [i]ownership[/i]. I'm glad to note that you didn't strenuously promote the need for [i]ownership[/i] in the full sense. My [i]rental[/i] proposal can easily accommodate long-term leases, in the very same manner as leased vs. purchased vehicles. That would address your concerns, would it not?

No one needs guns in the city. No one. Not even cops. Maybe I should say - especially not cops. But that's a separate debate. I fully agree that the registry is a crock, and have said so for years. But the reason it's a crock is that it doesn't go far enough, not by a city mile.

I'm a former gun owner who belonged to various rifle and revolver clubs over the years, as well as a rod and gun club in northern Ontario. I thought in my youth I'd never own a gun because I couldn't stand rednecks and the gun culture - I grew up as a pacifist despite (probably because of) my dad having been in the military. But in the 1980s I lived in small and large rural northern Ontario towns, and my friends were all hunters, fishermen, trappers, and farmers. I was sort of pulled into gun ownership through going hunting (I never saw anything I wanted to kill, though) with guns owned by other people, and enjoyed target shooting handguns and rifles at a local OPP gun range so much I got my own long guns.  I had a nice collection of antique and current Winchester firearms. That lasted to the end of the decade when I sold them all prior to moving to a small city - I was afraid of having them stolen in the city. Now I've been back in a very isolated wilderness community since 1995 and having a shotgun or small caliber rifle makes a lot of sense here, but, no, I've resisted the temptation to go back to gun ownership. I've made my peace with wild animals - we have black bears, wolves, beavers, groundhogs, and lots of other animals,  but I just go around them if I see them. I've always supported registration of all firearms and completely restricting military-style weapons such as automatics. I like Unionist's idea of having to keep guns in a central location that can be legally accessed and either rented or borrowed, but also with a strict limitation on the amount of ammunition permitted with any gun, and every shotgun shell or rifle bullet fired must be accounted for. We don't live in the wild west of yore, and folks have got to understand that.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Boom Boom

I hear you, but I think violent people will be violent people and use whatever they have at hand - a bottle, a knife, or burning a house down.

Yes, but guns make wounding and killing easy, and with potentially many more victims, and from a distance.

So Smith, why would anyone oppose registration?

And why would some NDP MPs, who supposedly believe in big ideals of social justice, feel the need to pander so much to some bizarre desperado sentiment that "I'll die before I register my holy guns!!" that they would buck caucus discipline?

Actually, my answer is that they are spiritually incapable of telling their constituents, "this is where I stand, here's why, let's talk it over". Or, they actually do believe that having to register your cannon is immoral. Either way, they have really no business being elected representatives of a progressive party fighting for a better future.

I hope Rafferty and Hyer cross the floor to the Conservatives. It will clarify things greatly. And no, I don't think we need anti-registry fanatics on our side to win a majority government.

Unionist wrote:

I hope Rafferty and Hyer cross the floor to the Conservatives. It will clarify things greatly. And no, I don't think we need anti-registry fanatics on our side to win a majority government.

I don't. And I hope we can get back to Jack Layton's way of resolving issues on which progressive people legitimately disagree.

The point I was trying to get at, Unionist, was "how he did it". The answer being privately. You have made assumptions about my views on this topic, which are incorrect. My point upthread, if you read it, is that the sanctions should have been applied privately, so as not to embarrass them in their ridings. Now, it may have been the case that they were applied privately, and the MPs in question decided to publicize the sanctions. That's up to them; maybe they feel it helps them in their ridings. Bill Siksay eventually revealed that he had been sanctioned, but he didn't make a big deal about it.

If on the other hand, they were applied privately, and other members of caucus were indiscrete, I'm grumpy at them.

Unionist wrote:

BA, thanks for actually replying to the proposals I have been elaborating here for many years.

I'm pleased to note that you don't oppose my proposed ban on all individual firearms possession anywhere near a municipal area. That's a starting point, isn't it?

As for the need to shoot pests in the countryside (which I fully acknowledge), does that mean farmers should be free to buy and sell weapons? Of course not. There has to be a method of allowing [i]use[/i] without allowing [i]ownership[/i]. I'm glad to note that you didn't strenuously promote the need for [i]ownership[/i] in the full sense. My [i]rental[/i] proposal can easily accommodate long-term leases, in the very same manner as leased vs. purchased vehicles. That would address your concerns, would it not?

No one needs guns in the city. No one. Not even cops. Maybe I should say - especially not cops. But that's a separate debate. I fully agree that the registry is a crock, and have said so for years. But the reason it's a crock is that it doesn't go far enough, not by a city mile.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I used the word ridiculous?  How this then.  It is idiotic to suggest renting weapons in the world I live in as a rural Canadian.  As a gun owner I have, far removed from the requirements of registration, a great deal of resposnibility around care and control of the firearms and ammunition I own. Making a suggestion like you are making would be scoffed at due to its complete unworkablity by every rural progressive I know.  Expecting someone to sort out a rental agreement in the situations I was talkiing about shows a profound ignornance of the lived reality of rural and northern people- and worse yet a complete unwillingness to learn and try to understand our reality.  It is the typical urban response of preaching to us about what we should want and believe and making us the scapegoats for the violence and its root causes in our society.  We gun tootin rednecks couldn't possibly understand these issues without urban help.  Lord we can barely find the indoor outhouse without help.

What is most refreshing though is to see that after all this time you have still set yourself up as judge and jury on what constitutes being progressive.  As I said before the registry was not progressive, nor is gun control in general.  It is just a thing neither left nor right and used by both.  The registry has nothing to do with progressive issues as it did nothing to address gun crime deterents or violence, particularly against women, in our society and was and remains a badly implemented attempt to appeal to wedge politics.  Its only possible real value was in solving crimes after the fact- which if you will pardon the rural expression, is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has left, went to town and is enjoying a beer at the local pub.  

Yeah, I'll bet it's almost as "invasive, unprofessional, and potentially dangerous" as the long form census.

The NDP has proposed amendments to the registry which would address your concerns, as you know. Any NDP MP who can't live with that, and explain it to his or her constituents, should go join Harper/Toews' Michigan Militia, and stop pretending to care about the rest of what the NDP stands for.

We don't need a handful of gun-worshipping government-hating libertarians to win a majority government. We do, however, need all the other groups in society that are demanding more stringent gun control - including women, Quebeckers, and yeah, urban latte-sipping progressives of every social class. By my count, that's over 85% of society.

When polled, the a majority of constituents wanted it abolished. This is what the local community wanted. I don't think a majority of those people in that riding can be considered "gun-worshipping government-hating libertarians " who somehow voted the NDP in.

I find it incredible that we had MP's willing to stand up for their constituents views on the long gun registry and not a single MP broke ranks over bombing civilians in Libya.

Unionist you are making the same argument that the pro D2P people in the party make.  "That is a minor issue and only a few people will leave the party because of it."  Of course with rural gun owners it is because they are likely red neck yahoos and with the D2P crowd it is we are just a bunch of pie in the sky radicals and we will not be missed.  But the good news is the party is trying to appeal to all the liberal and centrist voters in the country so they could still win power. 

Unionist wrote:

So NS, if you slow down for a minute, you'll realize that [b][i]I never said we should favour gun control because it'll only lose us a handful of votes[/i][/b]. You've got the cause and effect thing all backwards.

Here's what I'm saying, if you want it in real simple terms: The babblers who post about how bad the long-gun registry is [b]reflect the views of a tiny minority of progressive-minded Canadians[/b]. And then there are those who are worried that taking the right stand will cost us votes. My simple point, addressed to them, is that in this particular case, the battle for public opinion is already won. A majority of Canadians support gun control, including the flawed registry.

I know you don't support D2P and like me you think it is basically veiled imperialism.  However the people in the party like Do-War support it because they believe, like you do on gun control, that it is the progressive path.  You fail to see the people who oppose it because they do not live in your reality. A gun registry is a good thing, protecting civilians is a good thing but that doesn't mean that either Libya or this gun registry were good things.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/11/05/north-bevington-vot... Dennis[/url] - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Does anyone have any good articles on the long gun registry? The only ones I can find are written by right-libertarians..

For now, I actually think the long gun registry should be scrapped. It's really an unnecessary wedge issue..

@ Malcolm

Plus when the people in 1995 said "they want to take away all our guns" they could point to the fact that Allan Rock, who was put in charge of the legislation, had said exactly that - not to mention similar choice comments by Sharon Carstairs and others.

So fringe or not, how could you tell people they were just overreacting? I remember sitting in meetings and seeing people completely up in arms over that, and having no idea how far the Liberals intended to go. Is it any wonder some of them started burying guns?

I spoke to people fearing that the firearms legislation would be a way for authorities to force themselves onto their property for other purposes if there were no other legal means in the case of a protest, or some other standoff.

There was also a provision in the original bill (which I am not sure made it in to the final legislation) about making it a criminal offense to not assist officers and tell them everything they wanted to know - in effect compelling gun owners to possibly incriminate themselves. 

Unionist wrote:

So Smith, why would anyone oppose registration?

BA has pointed out what gun owners go through to have their guns, and then to have to register on top of that.

Unionist wrote:

And why would some NDP MPs, who supposedly believe in big ideals of social justice, feel the need to pander so much to some bizarre desperado sentiment that "I'll die before I register my holy guns!!" that they would buck caucus discipline?

That's a straw-man, and you know it. You have been either unwilling or unable to distinguish between the "right-to-bear-arms" NRA crowd and those who say, "I'm a gun owner, I have issues with the registration process because...."

Unionist wrote:

Actually, my answer is that they are spiritually incapable of telling their constituents, "this is where I stand, here's why, let's talk it over". Or, they actually do believe that having to register your cannon is immoral. Either way, they have really no business being elected representatives of a progressive party fighting for a better future.

So you're suggesting that party MPs automatically take the party line back to their constituents and say, "done deal" without any dialogue or input from them? Yes, I wish politicians would take direct stands more often, but there is also the aspect of listening to people.

Unionist wrote:

I hope Rafferty and Hyer cross the floor to the Conservatives. It will clarify things greatly. And no, I don't think we need anti-registry fanatics on our side to win a majority government.

What good would come of that? That would force the NDP to re-build in those 2 seats, which wouldn't be a guarantee because Rafferty and Hyer may also take people with them. That would also be 2 more seats that the NDP would have to take from the Conservatives, and it's much easier to hold an incumbent seat than to challenge for one.

Unionist wrote:

Remind me what you said when Bill Siksay was disciplined by Jack Layton for voting against Harper's omnibus crime bill, OO.

When I learned what happened, I was against it, and said so.

Unionist wrote:

Oh, and by the way, OO, the way to resolve issues on which "progressive people legitimately disagree" is to talk it over, at length, with input from all sources - and then to make a decision - and everyone leaves the room united.

What bench mark would you use to determine a united party? The party did sound pretty united on this issue in voting against the Conservatives, but a couple of people disagreed. There will be times when the NDP votes a particular way without the full support of caucus. Is there no room to "agree to disagree?"

Unionist wrote:

Rafferty and Hyer should either get back in line or GTFO.

Someone could have said the exact same thing to Bill Siksay, and it would have been just as wrong as what you are saying to Rafferty and Hyer. Besides, remember that Siksay was the only MP to vote against Harper's crime bill, so the party was pretty united on that. I suspect it's much less about internal party democracy (unless the party dissidents have a particular opinion that you share) and about imposing purity tests regarding positions you deem unprogressive or unworthy of discussion.

Peter3 wrote:

And with all due respect, if you want anybody to care about who in the NDP caucus you think should be told to GTFO, buy a membership.

Ah, I see. So party members get a say over who is worthy to speak for it in the House, but NDP voters - or Canadians at large - don't? The first part of that statement is factually false, the second part is sectarian and elitist. With all due respect.

Malcolm wrote:

Had the Chretien Liberals simply extended the handgun restrictions to include long guns, nobody but a handful of fringe nutjobs said a word.  Instead, he decided to demonize rural folk to win more votes in the cities.  And far to many clueless progressives were prepared to abandon all principle to support him.

Right. I guess Jack Layton plus 98% of the current NDP caucus added up to "far too many clueless progressives" who want to keep the long-gun registry until it can be replaced by something better.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So fringe or not, how could you tell people they were just overreacting? I remember sitting in meetings and seeing people completely up in arms over that, and having no idea how far the Liberals intended to go. Is it any wonder some of them started burying guns?

If you know where the guns are buried, would you mind advising the authorities? Were they also burying cartons of cigarettes because of all the increasing encroachments on smokers' rights - having no idea how far government intends to go with that? Just curious.

Quote:

I spoke to people fearing that the firearms legislation would be a way for authorities to force themselves onto their property for other purposes if there were no other legal means in the case of a protest, or some other standoff.

Did you really? And you consider these as rational opinions? Are these the same people who say we need guns to defend ourselves against the state? Have their fears come true over the past 20 years, or are they still waiting for the knock on the door by the Registry Troopers?

Quite the variety of opinions here. Now I understand why Harper won a majority. It's the registry. And even after it's abolished, it'll be too late to undo the damage. Our great-grandchildren will still hear tales how the City Cafe Communists tried to leave us unarmed and defenceless in the face of coyotes and cops.

Is it too late to get Turmel and the rest of the caucus to understand these simple points before third reading?

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

the registry was not progressive, nor is gun control in general.

Now you've lost me. I can accept 99% of what you say, but not that "gun control in general is not progressive." While we're listing stereotypes of what people think gun control means, list this: my female "rural" clients with husbands who have no livestock to protect, but who have repressed their anger management problems until they have two or three drinks, think gun control means (should mean) he must lock up off-site or get rid of that old rifle unless he can prove to the local police (who know what he's like) that he needs it readily available.

@ Unionist

In the first place, my point about people's reaction was to show out the horrible and arrogant way the Liberals handled it. And yes, I heard it from enough people (who no, were not the Canadian equivalent of right wing militia) that I do think it was a reasonable, not a fringe reaction.

Clear and direct statements from ministers seem to be accepted as valid when they threaten people in other ways, but this is somehow different? I don't personally think the Liberals would have gone that far, but only because, as I said, it would be unworkable. Who can say what they would have done had there not been the strong reaction there was. 

I said that the Liberals could probably have brought in an even stronger piece of legislation and gotten less reaction had they resisted the urge to be arrogant and play politics with it. As it is, the issue was poisoned from the very start.

How many times do I need to repeat that I do not favour an outright repeal of the law?

You are arguing with the wall.

@ Ken S

Thanks for sharing that sobering point. I agree with you about the seriousness of the issue. But it also points to the fact that the invasive points on the FAC aren't entirely effective.

After all, the law is in place, and there is still a threat concerning exactly those points which the questions are supposed to safeguard against.

how do do you enforce declaration and compliance for someone who does not acknowledge an addiction problem if you have no diagnosis, no commission of a crime related to that addiction, and no willingness?

And really, the other questions are similarly so broad that they stigmatize many people, and yet not specific enough to do much.

After all when you say it the way it is really meant - " Poor Joe, he lost his job. The cops had better watch him to make sure he doesn't go off and start killing people" it is clear how odd and discriminatory it is.

Again, I agree with you on those points, and I'm not questioning or challenging.

Unionist wrote:

You are very angry.

Eh? News to me. I don't believe I even told anybody to GTFO. Perhaps if I had written C instead of crap, you would have taken it in the spirit of high good humour that was intended.

Unionist wrote:

That's fine.

Good grief. Should I feel validated?

Unionist wrote:

But you should be more objective.

Oh, please. By measuring my opinions against what you perceive to be the only legitimate progressive posture? Jesus wept.

Unionist wrote:

I haven't "posted crap" about anyone. No one. Not even those who deserve it.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

You characterize the anti-gun registry population as dupes of the NRA and "gun-worshipping government-hating libertarians", you dismiss their arguments as "feeble" without any apparent understanding of what they are, you define progressiveness in terms that makes questioning the registry unprogressive by definition, and you do these things fully understanding (I'm giving you credit for thinking about it here) that there are people on this list who will legitimately feel, as people who question the registry, that the words are directed at them. The fact that your mode of attack is passive aggressive doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

Unionist wrote:

I never even respond to things like this, because I know they're just based on anger and frustration:

Assuming that your comment refers to what BA had to say, you forgot the word legitimate.

Unionist wrote:

So perhaps you should read through the thread and stop insulting me, or questioning my credentials to determine who should or should not be in the NDP caucus. NDP members, which I was for many years, have no say whatsoever over that question. But my opinions are sacred, and I will express them where and when I please, with all overdue respect.

I certainly never questioned your right to have and express opinions. Express them all you want. But when it comes to advising the party leadership on who should be told to "GTFO", don't expect anybody who actually has anything on the line in the situation to care much what you have to say from your armchair. From the inside, you're just some guy who thinks the word progressive means "people who think exactly like me."