normanchateau

Doesn't the Harper government's plan to spend billions of dollars to house criminals on the basis of an increase in "unreported" crime argue against your position?

Your link is meaningless in that it provides no information whatsoever about gun laws in those countries. It merely provides homicide rates, not even homicide rates linked to homicide by guns as opposed to other methods. To draw a correlation, you'd need data on homicide by long guns, homicide by handguns, enforcement of gun laws, etc. Even Stephen Harper has made no suggestion to change Canadian restrictions on handguns. Doesn't his argument that criminals don't register long guns also apply to handguns? If so, why isn't he demanding that all Canadians have free access to handguns? Either he doesn't see the inconsistency in his logic or he seriously believes that relaxed access to handguns might increase the homicide rate.

"...the Conservatives were presented this week with a sensible way of addressing their stated concerns about coercion of Canadians. The Liberals introduced a motion, later passed by the combined Opposition, removing the nominal but never-used threat of jail time for failure to complete any mandatory census... But the government had the same response for this expression of Parliament’s will as it had for science, fact and commonsense. It doesn’t care and it isn’t budging. Tory MP Steven Blaney was still repeating the blarney that the long-form questionnaire wants to know what cereal you have for breakfast, which is simply not true. His colleague [Conservative MP] Dean Del Maestro, who says he has taken "a lot of statistics courses," said he has never heard the argument that voluntary surveys yield less valuable data than a mandatory census. Was he on Mars all summer?" Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1204970.html At the risk of addressing the initial thread topic, and therefore being totally ignored, I'm pointing out that Harper's war on science and statistical significance continues. Apparently the Harper government has no need for accurate statistics. In explaining why the Harper government was building more jails while crime in Canada was on the decline, the Harper government claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stockwell+says+unreported+crimes+rising/3353984/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-long-form-census-debate/article1647591/

I suppose if preventing federal scientists from talking to the media about 13,000 year old floods and other research findings inconsistent with Harper's beliefs were the only example, this would not constitute a war on science. Unfortunately, there are more examples. The percentage of qualified researchers in Canada being funded by Tri-Council grants, i.e., CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC, has been steadily eroding during the dark Harper era. Since his election, Harper has been in a constant war with medical scientists and physicians at Insite: http://www.straight.com/article-141083/harper-government-has-no-love-science He permanently eliminated his National Science Advisor: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/01/no_science_in_the_pms_ear.html One could argue that appointing Gary Goodyear as Minister of Science shows utter contempt for science but I'll cut Harper some slack on that absurd appointment. He didn't have a lot of options in his bible-thumping caucus. Stockwell Day would have been a worst choice. And anyone with even a first-year college or university undergraduate knowledge of the science of statistics would know that a voluntary census makes no sense in terms of scientific validity. The US once tried a voluntary census, found it didn't work, and went back to a mandatory census. As much as Harper's irrational ditching of the mandatory census annoys me, there is a golden lining. Those undecided voters who might once have wondered how Harper would behave with a majority can now make an educated guess. If Harper, while leading a minority government, is willing to risk getting rid of a mandatory census favoured by scientists and most Canadians, what would he do if he actually achieved that elusive minority?

The born-again, Evangelical Stephen Harper has a history of mixing politics with religion. He opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals in part because he feared that it would result in the bible being banned in Canada. And it was not health concerns that caused Harper to ban abortion funding in third world countries in his maternal and child health initiative. Besides creationist Gary Goodyear, Canada's government is top-heavy with Evangelicals...Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, Stephen Harper.

The discrepancy between these two polls may reflect the differences in methodology: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/13/environics-poll.html

It turns out that a higher percentage of Canadians would vote for an atheist as Prime Minister than they would for an Evangelical Christian as Prime Minister: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=61a83d87-2b84-4344-9671-ae3272cb9878&k=62108 Unfortunately we are saddled with an Evangelical Christian Prime Minister who surrounds himself with speech writers, policy coordinators, anti-abortionists and other hangers-on who share his Evangelical beliefs, even putting in charge of Canada's science and technology policies a chiropractor who believes, like Evangelical Stockwell Day, that the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans co-existed. No wonder that this week Stephen Harper trailed only Brian Mulroney as the second worst of the last eight prime ministers: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/trudeau_best_mulroney_worst_for_canadians1/

For answers to your question, and there are multiple plausible answers, you might want to read this book (not just random excerpts): http://www.cfdp.ca/giffen.htm

Perhaps not but there are certainly members of the opposition well-versed in science knowledge, e.g., Dr. Keith Martin. Unfortunately they are not in power.

WIP posts that crime is on the decline. You respond to WIP with: "It might or might not be but violent crime doesn't appear to be." Now in response to the link I provided, you post Statistics Canada data showing a large decline in crime and a 2% decline in violent crime. Seems that even the Statistics Canada data support WIP's point. The Statistics Canada data in your link also look at specific types of crimes and perhaps will provide some comfort to social conservatives like Stephen Harper. Possession of cannabis, which continued to account for almost half of all drug offences, posted a rate increase. In other words, crime rates went down despite the increase in the number of arrests for cannabis possession. As a member of a Christian Evangelical sect who strongly condemns marijuana use, Stephen Harper must be pleased that more people are being arrested for the mere possession of marijuana. It seems that Christian Nationalists, like other religious fundamentalists, are obsessive about criminalizing rather than regulating marijuana. Stephen Harper and his social conservative cohorts should be ashamed of themselves for not decriminalizing marijuana, thereby perpetuating the absurd scenario in which almost half of all police-reported drug crimes involve mere possession of marijuana.

Well fancy that. I thought that it was only those who were intellectually lazy who ignored facts and links.

Like Stephen Harper, you are misinformed as usual. Not only have crime rates gone down in Canada, the largest declines have been in violent crimes, such as homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual offences, abduction and robbery: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/vital-signs-violent-crime-community-report380.html

Stockwell Day has said there is scientific proof that the world is about 6,000 years old and that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs. I'm not so sure that Evangelical Day and Evangelical Harper differ in their views. Harper has the intelligence not to talk about his Evangelical beliefs: http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/09/10/why-stephen-harper-keeps-his-evangelicalism-very-private.aspx

And also no coincidence that last year Harper appointed Darrel Reid as his new deputy chief of staff. Who is Darrel Reid? Reid is the Evangelical who compared members of the House of Commons to Nazis if they voted in favour of making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of lesbians and homosexuals. Reid's comments were made in 2003 in opposition to Bill C-250, which added sexual orientation to the list of reasons groups were protected against hate crimes and hate speech. Reid argued that the bill could lead to Christians being convicted of hate crimes for defending the traditional definition of marriage. "This isn't the first time in human history where tyranny has been imposed on people," Reid stated. "You know, it happened in Germany in the '30s, and frankly I see some real parallels there -- because, you know, Adolf Hitler and his bunch really didn't care ultimately what you thought personally, but they really cared about what you said because that became dangerous. And, therefore, when people spoke up about things like freedom or spoke up about their religious values, that was when the power of the state started coming down." Reid's comments were taken seriously by at least one Evangelical Christian, Stephen Harper, who as leader of the Canadian Alliance had his entire caucus vote against C-250. C-250 passed because most Liberals, the BQ, the NDP, and even Progressive Conservatives including Peter MacKay and Joe Clark voted for it.

It is probably also no coincidence that Evangelical Harper hired Nigel Hannaford as his speechwriter last year: http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Harpers_new_speechwriter_is_a_gay_rights_opponent-7727.aspx Hannaford wrote in 2005, "Fine, said lots of people. Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let 'em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other's benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous. Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point?"

US phenomenon? In case you haven't noticed, the Prime Minister of Canada is a Christian Evangelical. Do you think it's mere coincidence who Harper promoted last year to be his Director of Policy? Source: http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/03/25/evangelicals-promoted-to-top-jobs-by-pm-stephen-harper.aspx

Evangelical Christian Stockwell Day does not necessarily oppose universal education but he does appear to oppose provincial government involvement in setting educational standards: "At the time Day fervently defended the material - and the right of his school to teach whatever it wanted - saying he was willing to "go to jail, if need be." "God's law is clear," said an angry Day to the Alberta Report in 1984. "Standards of education are not set by government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school." Source: http://www.straightgoods.com/item313.shtml

You're right. Both the left-wing Labor Party and right-wing Likud have formed coalitions with socially conservative religious parties in order to maintain power. Yet Harper continues to condemn the idea of a "coalition of losers" ruling Canada. I suspect that he has no problem with a coalition of losers governing Israel.

Imagine that...a Harper supporter cutting Harper some slack for obscene spending. Shocking. This is reminiscent of Harper's budgets during his first term when he increased spending and handouts to Quebec by more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada...and this was before there was even a sign of a pending recession: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/flaherty-biggest-of-big-spenders.php At what point do Harper supporters conclude that his sustained betrayal of fiscal conservatism is a reason for them not to vote for his party? Surely his homophobia, social conservatism and blending of politics with religion is not sufficient reason to keep voting for a Prime Minister who spends hard-earned taxpayer dollars like a drunken sailor.

Relative to alcohol and nicotine addiction?

Yes, that must be true. It's written in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm surprised that Naomi has not cited it.

Well actually Israel is not quite Canada. Israel is currently governed by a coalition of losers. In the last election, Netanyahu's Likud Party came second, both in seats and percentage vote, to the first place Kadima. But Kadima didn't win a majority so Netanyahu was able to form a coalition of losers by bringing together the ultra-Orthodox and other social conservatives. What's funny is that I've never heard Harper condemn Israel for being governed by a coalition of losers. I imagine Harper would do the same but there's no party to the right of the CPC. Given that CPC is a merged coalition of the PCs and the Reform Party, in a sense we are now governed by a coalition of losers.

The Asper family no longer holds a controlling interest in the media conglomerate that he founded. Do you think Izzy Asper is controlling today's CanWest journalists from the grave?