myata

Sounds right. Though the premise that anything in here would be as natinal security sensitive as to require our parliament to voluntarily limit its privilege (and responsibility) to hold government accountable, sounds a bit (a very large bit, to be precise) stretchy, of both credibility and imagination.

"Deeply divided" is a pointless distraction. While it's a standing state of affairs in Canada, the policies abroad should be consistent with our own laws. To do otherwise is hypocritical, and of course sheer, ideology driven opportunism. You want to change it here, in Canada? Bring it on, why hide behide poor Africa?

And that would be an honest position. What is incredible and hypocritical is our government's push to get itself into the list of do-gooders of the world, while quietly setting policies based not on rationale or reason, not the laws and practices of our own land, but on their narrow ideological likes and preferences. Making Canada's position appear hypocritical, but indeed showing CPC's true ideological colours. So much for embracing modern reality and leaving social conservatism behind. No, it didn't go anywhere of course. Just biting its time, deep under the cover.

Not if Iggy makes it work anyways. What if LCP and CPC both vote for some sort of "compromise" to avoid an election "nobody wants"? Or would it require agreement of every single MP (TB may know)?

No wait, Iggy may yet come out with a "compromise" whereby Parliamentary supremacy will be reaffirmed in principle, while government's - in practice! Keeps everybody happy (hasn't he alredy mumbled something to this extent?)

But no, we don't. Only use the standards and policies constistent with our own laws and practices here. Why would we want to do something different in Africa than the law of our own land? Only because the folks who find themselves in the government these days silently despise and hate these laws, these freedoms, and yet can do nothing about it, they choose to kick it where they still can i.e. abroad. I can't see another logical explanation. Yes it's that old-suspected hidden agenda finally coming out into the open.

I'm not going to be drawn into another abortion discussion. Somebody may see cutting of nails as "murder"; or god-forbid, reading "inappropriate" book could be a "murder" too (in somebody's inflamed mind). There's no lack of bizzare beliefs and ideas of which you here represent just one. These ideas have nothing to do with the realities of modern times (while we care to keep them) where individuals have full and absolute rigths over their minds and bodies never mind goodwishers of all kinds jumping around with their unasked for moral preachings and blessings. Just as little as CPC behind of scene politicking is. You want to roll back changes, get us back to the days woman couldn't get out without a man without being morally accused of something? Sure go ahead, bring it on. Just don't hide behind Friday night releases and offshore policies.. You know what, as you keep saying that over and over, I can't but assume that you're here to speak on behalf of them, "Canadian electors". Because other than yourself here and a few individuals with posters I see once in a while driving by local hospital, I fail to notice Canadian electors coming in those "up in arms". Could it be that Canadian electors (majority of them) treat it as it is, i.e. a matter of personal choice, on which everybody can have their own private opinion but is a bad taste to advise to others, especially if advice is unasked for? And respecting private choices of their own fellow citizens as Canadian electors mostly do, they no doubt see no reason to do differently with respect to people in other countries? Other than of course, those some of Canadian electors who simply can't get by without dictating other people what to do in their private lives. I already explained that reproductive freedom is a fundamental human right and in some circumstances abortion could be one of the few means available to uphold it. It's not about idological moralising but what could be done in practice. Food and education right, when family ends up with more children it can feed, and woman spends half of her life carrying unwanted pregnancies. But this is what Socially Conservative gifts are so often reduced to, it starts nice and generous and ends in useless bs. You really are "pro choice" aren't ya? Calling someone a "killer" for exercising their personal freedom (and without slightest rational reason for that too)?

The problem is not with the electorate. Maybe not even with the "politicians" if they could all be branded with one tag. OK there appears to be much ignorance, boredom, complacency and lack of interest, which may become serious or even fatal for democracy (real and functioning) in the long run. But we aren't there just yet, and before getting there we could still try a few things. One of which would be of course, allowing voters a real and meaningful choice. As was already explained in another thread, the problem is with the stagnant, devoid of real competition system that has little interest to develop new and effective policies and solutions for the country, and a lot of vested interest to preserve things as they are and no matter what. That system naturally inspires deep yawning lack of voter interest and attracts en masse mediocre career conscious and line toeing politicians. To expect otherwise would be illogical and irrational. To hope that it could change by its own act would be pipedreaming.

But what else could it be? I know what is good for you, and my opinion should prevail over your freedom, private choice, morals, sexual preferences, and so on. How could one credibly claim to support freedom here and deny it somewhere else for yet unexplained (intelligently) reason? No, the only logical explanation is that they despise, hate and seek to abolish that freedom. And being unable to achieve it here and now, they are doing it somewhere else instead. As a first step. Nothing "wedgy" there other than in socially conservative mind. Abortion is legal in Canada and it should be supported as one choice in the array of many to uphold women's freedom where it can be done legally. But no, we want to divide basic and fundamental freedoms into those we like and those we don't and that is indeed a wedge issue. A wedge between free and open future and cave age past where shaman, priest or moral leader would rule on validity of individual's private choices.

"Controversial" only as far ideological views of socially cave age crowd go. It's no more "controversial" than wearing miniskirt or voting or having a gay friend. Check which century it is, out there. I'm sure that nothing illegal is being imposed on anybody. However access to safe and affordable abortions is one of instruments to support women's freedom not in the least freedom from unwanted pregnancies. And in some places it could be important instrument because of so many reasons (access to contraception, education about it, conflicts and violence etc), so limiting or denying it on purely ideological grounds compromises the whole idea of this project. Yeagh right, you simply know what is good for them, how they should behave and what they should do. Isn't it the whole idea of social conservatism?

Wow, what a creative fantasy! You're really burying your talent here (could get you a Booker or something)) Back to the reality world, of course only Harper's folks could go as far as, being unable to roll back social developments in our country, kick them under the table, picking and choosing policies not according to rational analysis, not to our countries own standards and practices, but only by their ideological preferences. Making us all here look stupid or hypocritical to the core (yeah we allow it here; no, it's not good for you) courtesy of you know who. Harper promised not to reopen this debate, but he's doing exactly that. That the arena is a policy for ourside our borders shouldn't fool anybody, it's only a distraction, a way to obscure matters for the time being.

It's not "controversial" in Canada, no. It's absolutely, 100% legal. Get out of your cave. And suggest the same to our honourable PM, too.

She is absolutely correct. Abortion is absolutely legal in this country, and there's no rational reason to use different policy abroad. Of course, wary of exhibiting their outdated socially conservative mentality openly, Harper's conservatives are again following the path of vague insinuations and kicking it (the right to abortion, i.e reproductive freedom) behind closed doors and beyond our borders. Everybody must already know this hallmark pattern quite well, as demonstrated by earlier episodes with Kyoto, gun registry, death penalty and so on. Why are they doing it? Maybe, to pull in the notion that something isn't right with that fundamental right? Perhaps as a safer test ground to see if they could attempt to pull some restrictions to this right here as well? All in all it clearly shows that fears of hidden agenda behind modern facade of CPC can be more than just unsubstantiated fears.

There's any number of ways in which registration of legal guns can be used to investigate and prevent crimes, which will come into practice over time. The thing is that the registry makes it possible. More importantly, with consistent and enforced use, it'll facilitate the culture of discipline toward guns in the country. Any notion of gun control that permits unlimited and unchecked accumulation of weapons like those used by Dawson shooter would defy credibility. Repeated history of violence, including spousal violence Severe mental illness or delusion Membership in illegal (of any kind) organisation: gang, militia, extremist group Etc Combination of any of the above with a stock of deadly weapons is a recepy for another gun crime and more victims.

Because, as already explained, one (tracking guns) is technically possible; and feasible; and doesn't even cost that much, now that the registry has been set up; while the other is not (technically possible or feasible; maybe because gun is lot harder to make than a knife?) We can go for real practical solutions now, or keep fuming till end of times why anything we could do wouldn't be the perfect solution to solve all of our problems forever and therefore isn't worth bothering about. To Wilber: When would it sink in that "most honest and responsible" at one time could mean a crackpot with a store of dangerous weapons some years later? Need examples? The latest one was on the news in Ottawa not two weeks ago, with a great neighbour and former mayor going crack and shooting police officer.

I know that that adage can justify pretty much everything. The question is, how long we need to hear it, or pretend to believe until opening our eyes to what's actually going on in reality.

Exactly because they are "significant" it makes all the sense to keep on with practical work on tracking all guns (and on that basis, developing mechanisms to prevent them from falling into wrong hands) as opposed to fuming on the account of what's impossible or not feasible. I'm not going to comment on unreferenced, or selectively posted data. We have earlier established the actual rates of violent crime committed with long guns. But the registry does serve a real and very practical purpose: to ensure that there's a comprehensive gun control regime in the country, where every gun is licensed and tracked. The way things are done here, very few of such projects on the national scale were flawlessly successful right from the start. Compare it with e.g. our MP's traveling budget.

Can you point to such instance (hundred of stabbings in one incident)? Thought so. There's any number of cases where an armed crackpot killed or wounded 20 people or more in a single incident of mass shooting. No, there's (or there should be, at least) a separate solution to each part of the problem. The registry does not do all things, it serves comprehensive tracking of all firearms and has no other claims. And without tracking of all guns no meaningful gun control is possible. No, just does not agree with the facts that are available to everybody (who cares to notice). You simply can't get over it, but the sad reality is that those moneys are gone, just like the monies buried in the countless earlier episodes of government's incapacity. All that can be saved now is 25 million annually (yes the correct number can be found, only takes better looking) - plus of course the plan to torpedo comprehensive gun control in this country. Yes I know, but not for the lack of better argument though?

Logic may have little to do with wanting something "nuked". Ideology of the anti-registry crowd is showing in the quality of arguments it's presenting (either irrelevant or misleading). Without opening an all-new gun control discussion here (which we have every six months or so, check the archives), firearms are much more dangerous in the public environment (as multiple episodes of mass shooting show us - i.e. those of us who care to notice), so we can start with getting them under control first. This is not to say that those knives (as well as other instruments) designed solely as a weapon shouldn't require some limitation of access as well as added responsibiliy by the owner. The result of registration will be long term, in establishing a comprehensive regime of tracking for all firearms, and it'd be folly to expect immediate results (especially with the current government doing everything possible to compromise it). Without registration or licensing of individual gun comprehensive gun control simply isn't possible and that's the position the Consertaves are driving at. The next step may be, "let's dismantle gun control altogether and focus on criminals instead". And I highly doubt the factual correctness of Fantino's statement, I've no data on Toronto, but over that same period there's been several episodes of "common" violence with firearms here in Ottawa, not to mention the shooting in Montreal. Registry is there for the purpose though, namely to ensure comprehensive gun control. Would we rather "piss" our money, in much higher volumes btw, on building and maintaining prisons? I never said that the registry is some kind of a silver bullet solution to gun crime problem. It can only be addressed by a comprehensive set of policies where each component is important and plays its role: police work to dismantle guns, stop flow of illegal guns, reduce common and spousal violence; social development of communities; and comprehensive gun control.

"Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for a fee. A separate license is required for each individual firearm. A number of firearms a person can own is not limited any way. With the primary licensee's consent, parallel licenses to his firearms can be granted to other persons. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority." [Wikipedia: Gun politics in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland) (The example chosen randomly from the posted list.)

Maybe it does, but hardly on this particular issue. Common sense tells me that a gun, whose sole purpose is to kill, is a dangerous instrument by nature that needs the same kind of controls we apply to other, well, dangerous instruments. The facts tell me that places with loose guns are also the ones with higher violent gun crime rates. And what do we have on the other side? Irrelevant references to government's inherent incapacity to get things right first time around, and pumped up appeals to "tougher justice" no matter what we see in the reality around us. So where is the ideology? Where is common sense and rational approach to matters? And where is the irrational, ideology driven bs aimed at little else but scaring people up, distracting their attention from real and practical ways of approaching the problem, and perhaps getting themselves reelected in the wake of that scarewave?

Can't tell for sure though, are we? To understand irony, one should be able to at least see both sides of the story as well as facts behind it. If we're stuck in our ironset ideological mindset we'd only be able to craw the same old "tough justice .. crack" no matter what's going on out the windon.

Focused and persistent targeting the hotspots of crime, gangs, organised crime groups; social development to prevent recruitment into crime; and gun control to reduce availability of weapons to pro crime, and severity of "everyday" violence are all the common sense approaches to dealing with the crime that's been shown to work over and over. And of course, CPC's "tough" approach is directly opposite: sabotage gun control, reduce social programs, and put more people into jails. If we buy into it, it will result in higher crime rate as 2 x 2(and cost us more too, through building and running those jails as the Conservative answer to investing into communities). I'm not saying that everything is great with the system we have as I commented several times, nor with the gun registry in particular, but it's working and is bringing results in the continuously falling crime rates, and there's no rational reason to sabotage it and no reason to replace with something that so obviously does not work, other than for pure and sheer ideology.

I'm quite astonished at how easily Israel's government can talk "peace" and perpetuate these open acts of provocation, hostility and aggression all at the same time. Next time there's a flare of violence in the region, as it almost inevitably happens (hope I'll be wrong this time around), there shouldn't be any doubts as to which side has contributed so much to it (as well as the real worth of "poor victim of the hostile environment" fairy tale). The sooner we stop playing into this hypocrisy, and no, not verbally, words don't count for much here, the sooner the real movement toward peace will happen. At some point down this road of hypocrisy and double talk our inaction will begin looking nothing less than appeasement (and maybe even sponsoring, through diverse "aid" packages) of aggression.

Gosh, isn't it weird how ideological blindfolds make people not notice even most obvious reality? Loose guns plus tough justice = higher crime rates. Obvious common sense (somebody goes crack; finds their gun; bang) confirmed by multiple facts. So if we wouldn't shell out crumbles for gun control now, are we going to spend billions building and running those prisons later? And with that investment of our hardearned bucks buy no less than higher crime rates as career criminals instructed in those jails lay their hands on readily available guns. And live in fear of crime, even violent gun crime. But ideology will be served. And we'll continue to elect our Conservatives as the staunchest supporters of police state (otherwise known as "small government"). And the cycle will go on; and on. For as long as we keep our brains on the shelf, right beside toothbrush.