Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Monday, April 19, 2010

I'd like to thank Michael Ignatieff...

...for his generous contribution of all remaining rural Liberal seats to the Conservative Party of Canada in the next election.

Seats such as Madawaska—Restigouche, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Yukon, likely a couple in Newfoundland, and potentially even Kingston and the Islands and Wascana.

Do the math on this one folks... it could even be enough to put us over the top for a MAJORITY.

Yea, I guess it's not all that generous a gift... I mean, if you really think about it, they've only got a whopping TOTAL OF EIGHT SEATS WEST OF MISSISSAUGA, out of the 120+ available.

I wonder if Jack's going to be so willing to hand us his seven or so western rural seats.

UPDATE: The more I think about this one, the more I'm left shaking my head. Ignatieff's move today makes no political sense WHATSOEVER.

As the Leader of a political party, the battles you pick are normally on issues that have an electoral upside. This one? I can't see one for the Liberals. It's not going to win them any friends in urban Canada, as they've got most of the seats there already. It's not like they're having to do anything to protect those seats, so he could have just let his rural MP's vote in favour of the Bill or abstain, without any loss. However, now that he's whipped the vote, his MP's in the rural areas are effectively screwed, with their leader effectively handing their ridings over to the CPC.

It's just yet another example of the fact that "Iffy" just doesn't have the political street-smarts to play in the big game... either that, or he's surrounded himself with folks who have the electoral mathematical skills of a chimpanzee.

Labels: , ,


  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 01:04:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ardvark said…

    Ignatieff says he'll propose changes to the registry, including decriminalizing the failure to register long guns.

    (Then what is the point of having it at all?)

    He says a new Liberal government would also eliminate fees for new licences, renewals and upgrades.

    (Sort of the way it has been since Jan 2006 under the CPC government.)

    How many are going to abstain, or cash in their one time pass, on this vote?

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 01:34:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Bert said…

    Iffy is an arrogant ****. I self edited that word, 'cause this is a family blog, CC. I can't wait until Helena Guergis sues him for the "Organized Crime" comment he made on CTV's Question Period.

    Iggy ?. You can be sued for comments made during Question Period on CTV. It is NOT the same as Question Period in the House Of Commons.

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 01:54:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Perhaps the Iggomaniac has had enough of politics and wants a way out so he can return to academia.

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 02:10:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Calgary Junkie said…

    This is such a bone-headed move by Iggy, in so many ways, one hardly knows where to begin.

    Let's see how Layton reacts. I can't believe he is going to throw his rural MPs over the cliff as well. It's a piece of cake for Jack to spin this along the lines of:

    "This is a private member's bill, in which MPs, by tradition, are allowed to vote their conscience. It was all a cynical procedural move by Harper, who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to present this as a government bill, yadda yadda"

    So the most likely outcome is that Candice's bill will pass anyway, as the 12 Dipper votes are more than enough for us.

    Given that, why is Iggy playing hardball with his own rural MPs ??? He AGAIN puts them in a difficult, compromising position. And all for NOTHING !?!

    Donolo is off his rocker here, seeming to want to make a point that his "wedge issue" strategy is a good one.

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 02:51:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    "Mathematical skills of a chimpanzee"?

    I don't think so.

    Depends on what you're counting though.

    It seems he's counting the number of police organizations that support the registry.

    What do you make of the last few lines of the article that you link to:

    However, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards all support the registry.

    RCMP Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney has also spoken out in support of the registry.

    "I believe that there's compelling evidence that the registry promotes officer and public safety," Sweeney told the Commons public safety committee in March.

    In 2009, the long-gun registry was accessed my police 11,000 times a day, according to a Liberal press release.


    I find the last line troubling: "according to a liberal press release". Sure. But... what about according to reality? Shouldn't news organizations do more work?

    But I digress.

    I did find sources from some of the organizations that are said to support the gun registry, and there is clear evidence on their websites that they do:

    Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.

    Canadian Professional Police Association

    Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police

    Canadian Association of Police Boards


    So if this does lead you to a majority... it will be by passing a bill that Police forces across the country disagree with, in order to eliminate a system that they use 11000 times per day.**

    Is there not some tension between your party's position on this issue and their pro-police image?

    Based on your post, you seem more concerned about how this will play out politically in an election. It may or may not hurt the liberals politically. But I'm sure that whatever the outcome, it will have more to do with spin-doctoring than with the arguments for and against the registry.

    **I wasn't able to confirm the 11000 number, but it seems plausible. One of the above sources says that: "As of June 30, 2009, the average daily rate of Canadian police queries to the Canadian Firearms Registry Online is 10,304."

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 04:18:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anon1152--That 11,000 number is likely accurate but must have a big asterisk next to it. According to ... crap, I can't remember if he was the former RCMP commissioner or something along those lines--anyhow, a grand fromage who appeared on CKNW radio in mid March, the long gun registry is accessed automatically whenever a suspect search is done by computer. I would be more interested in seeing the number of intentional accesses to the database. (Sorry I can't access the audio vault right now to determine exactly who it was.)

    The speaker went on, however, to point out that the information gathered was useless anyhow, because police protocol (as well as common sense) dictates that they must assume everyone has a weapon; not doing so has led to some rather unfortunate incidents. And really, it's only the law-abiding ones who have registered the guns, and they're not exactly the most likely to go around shooting at cops, are they?


  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 04:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hits to the Registry database are automatic every time the CPIC system is queried.

    If an officer runs your name for speeding, the registry is checked, even if you own no firearms.

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 04:44:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    99% of those hits on the registry have nothing to do with crime prevention, or anything else. They're automatically generated every time a cop punches a name or license plate into a computer.

    The only interesting info that comes back is a) one owns firearms, and b) one owns restricted firearms (handguns). What those guns may be is completely beside the point, and irrelevant to how police move forward.

    Indeed, the very most dangerous assumption a cop can make is that, because one does NOT show up as a firearms owner, then they can move forward on this assumption. No cop in his right mind does this, not ever.

    So, then what real purpose does the registry solve?

    Simple: It makes confiscation considerably more possible on that day that surely is coming when a left wing government finally decides that civilians no longer have the right to own firearms of any kind.

    Which will be day Canada entirely ceases to any longer be a nation of freedom and liberty, period.

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 05:09:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The reason that there are 11,000 queries on average per day is that the registry is linked to the CPIC data base. That means Reg. Info comes up automatically when an officer checks your license plate for running a stop sign.
    Does anyone really think there would be that many specific firearm checks per day in this country?

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 05:09:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The registry is accessed automatically everytime a licence is run or an address is queried etc.. If you only include direct requests then you are into single digits!

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 05:51:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Wow 1152... I'm thinking all those reponses count as a "pile on". ;-)

    But I have a serious question for you regarding what I said previously...

    "folks who have the electoral mathematical skills of a chimpanzee"

    Come on... you gotta admit, that was a pretty good line! ;-)

  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 07:15:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Hi CC:

    A pile on? Perhaps, but I feel ok...

    I was not offended by the chimp comment. Though I never thought I would be asked a question about chimpanzee math that would be described as "serious."

    I can't quite "get into the spirit of things", however. I know my own mathematical skills far too well. And... have you seen some of the people who get elected on a regular basis in contemporary democracies?


  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 07:17:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Johann: Thank you. It's good to know why the registry is used so much. I am a big believer in asterisks, which is one reason I tried to find a more credible source for confirmation.

    The automatic nature of many of the searches may or may not be a good thing. And it would be interesting to see the automatic/non-automatic breakdown... but I'm not sure the answer to those questions undermines the argument for the registry that I was pointing out: the police want it.

    For the record, I don't think that on its own is a satisfactory argument. But... I hoped it would resonate among the Blogging Tories.

    This point is something that no one [as far as I can see] has responded to directly. The police seem to want the registry. And I tried to provide some police sources (rather than "a liberal press release") to back up that claim. You could say I was wanting to get the information from the horse's mouth, rather than the chimpanzee's mouth.


  • At Mon. Apr. 19, 07:17:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Opponents of the registry refer to "criminals" as if they were some alien group, completely separate from the rest of us. This makes sense to some extent. "Law abiding citizens" should be treated in one way, "criminals" in another. But... there is no way to know before hand whether or not someone fits into one group or the other. And people can move between the groups all of the time. For example, are we going to consider Rahim Jaffer "a criminal" for the rest of his life [here I'm assuming the only thing he has done wrong is what he plead guilty to... and perhaps what he was charged with. I don't think that what he was doing or accused of doing is right, but... it wasn't that horrible. No one was hurt... But I digress. My point is that it's quite possible for law abiding citizens to become criminals, and vice versa. And unless you want to institute life sentences or the death penalty for nearly all crimes (parking violations anyone?) then most of those who go to prison are going to come out at some point.

    To assume that all people who legally own guns will always be "law abiding" or that their guns will always be used in "law abiding" ways is, I think, naive. And no, that doesn't mean that all gun owners should be treated as criminals, no more than all car owners should be [or are] treated as criminals if they have to register their cars.

    There are reasons to keep the registry that exist even if we take all "criminals" out of the picture. I think there are many times when guns can and should be confiscated "for someone's own good".

    I know and given Springer's comment about "left wing government," I suspect some will interpret this as a freedom-killing-nanny-state-totalitarian thing, but please bear with me.

    Consider some Statistics Canada data (The most recent data I can find are from 2005).**

    In 2005, there were 576 homicides.

    202 of those deaths were "by discharge of firearms".

    Let's say for the sake of argument that these murders were committed by people who are not inclined to register their firearms.

    In the same year [2005] there were 3747 suicides.

    576 of those deaths were through "the discharge of firearms."

    [These numbers exclude accidental deaths. Your Dick Cheney or Darwin Award moments]

    There is an interesting paradox here. I may get a gun for protection. And it would count as protection. But... it doesn't protect me from the person most likely to shoot me: namely, me.

    I'm not saying that guns should be prohibited or confiscated en masse. BUT if a doctor or psychiatrist, or teacher or pastor or someone like that has reason to believe that someone (e.g., a patient) is homicidal or suicidal, it might make sense to check to see if there are any firearms in the household, and to remove them if only temporarily.

    I think that's something that most law abiding gun owners can consent to, on reflection--if not for themselves, then for their neighbours.

    My main problem with the argument or debate is that it seems to have little or nothing to do with good arguments and good evidence, and everything to do with "politics" [in the pejorative sense of the term].

    Didn't find a convenient table of information, but you can "make your own" here. Click "no" to the "website evaluation" if it comes up, and select the relevant information. When you get to "cause of death", homicide and suicide are at the very bottom, so scroll down first.

  • At Tue. Apr. 20, 11:55:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger maryT said…

    What is the big worry, you know that within a few days Mr Z will flip flop and allow a free vote. But, the damage is done. Wonder if the committee meeting will be broadcast on cpac.
    Will Kady be live blogging it, sitting right in front of the camera.
    Will Holland march thru the streets with said secret documents. Hey, did the Speaker ever rule on that incident.


Post a Comment

<< Home