segnosaur

Of course, Portugal actually joined the "Coalition of the Willing". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing Except that while Portugal never withdrew from Kyoto, it looks like they will miss their targets. So, from the U.N. perspective, its better to lie and fail, rather than admit up front "We're not going through with this". http://www.energy.eu/ Actually, it is. Keep in mind that while you might want to blame Harper, the Liberals did very little to help curb our CO2 emissions (if that really is a reason we were not selected), and under the Liberals our defense greatly suffered. Actually, there is... there are plenty of them. NATO and NORAD come to mind.

Are you really so disingenuous that you would claim "Oh, multiple statements that refer only to illegality of war in Iraq are taken out of context"? Perhaps if your whole argument is based on "Oh, they were misquoted" then you should go back and reconsider your position. If all these deserters are against war in general, how come they spend so much time complaining about the "illegality" of the Iraq war? Someone truly against all war would not spend their time worrying about such technical issues. The fact is, there have been multiple cases where people have specifically stated that they were willing to fight in Afghanistan or other wars, but not in Iraq. For example, from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article612898.ece Many of the deserters are not pacifists, against war per se, but they view the Iraq war as wrong. First Lt Watada, for instance, said he would face prison rather than serve in Iraq, though he was prepared to pack his bags for Afghanistan to fight in a war that he considered just. Or how about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml (Felushko) told Pelley it wasn't fighting that bothered him. In fact, he says he started basic training just weeks after al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington –- and he was prepared to get even for Sept. 11 in Afghanistan. But Felushko says he didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein. And then there's this case: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/192625/deserteurs-americains-cas-de-conscience-canadien (Translations done via google) Chuck Wiley asked to be reassigned to a ship which will not be deployed off the coast of Iraq.... a lawyer for the U.S. Navy told him the bad news: he can not claim the status of conscientious objector to leave the army, since he does not oppose all wars, but only conflict in Iraq.

Your suggestion is both unworkable and impractical. Who exactly decides when a government is "lying through its teeth"? All governments have, at some point or another, made statements that are questionable. Bush did, Clinton did, Bush Sr. Did, Regan did. And what do you do about errors made in "good faith"? If you allow individual soldiers to back out of conflicts because they personally feel 'lied to' then it would become impossible for the military to function.

Minor point... it seems like you've overlooked a couple of key sections of the "Conscientious Objection" rules. The first reference you provided clearly states: A CF member may request voluntary release on the basis of conscientious objection if the CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in: * war or armed conflict in general; or * the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF. An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection: * participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation; * national policy; * personal expediency; or * political beliefs. Notice the parts that I have indicated in bold. If those rules were applied to U.S. soldiers, they would have to illustrate that they are unwilling to fight in any and all wars. Refusal to participate in Iraq (regardless of what they think are "valid" reasons) would not classify them as "conscientious objectors" because the rule specifies that they cannot be released because they refuse to participate in a particular conflict.

Actually, British parliamentary tradition has a long tradition of "Orders-in-Council", allowing the government to make political appointments and pass certain limited laws/regulations without requiring a vote. I'm pretty sure every prime minister has used them since confederation (including Chretien), so you can't suggest Harper was the only one who "invented the idea of executive privilege". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order-in-Council http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats

Keep in mind that that particular article was written by David Frum, who is a well-known right-wing writer/activist. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, but people should be cautious about accepting opinion columns as 'proof'.

Actually, there are currently questions regarding GM and its claim of 'paying back' the loan: From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575200832185846038.html?KEYWORDS=general+motors# A top Republican senator said General Motors' announcement this week that it will repay its federal loans early is "nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle."...the source of the funds for the $4.7 billion repayment is not GM earnings, but rather a Treasury escrow account. From: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/ (Yes, I do recognize that Fox News is a questionable source; however, the information seems to be backed up by information appearing in other sources. This article just goes into more detail.) GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department. Actually the "aim" isn't to outsource jobs from North America. The 'aim' is to allow countries to produce goods/services that its infrastructure is best suited for. At this point, it can mean that labor-intensive tedious manufacturing jobs might be done in poorer countries; however, the U.S. and Canada will make up for it with its better educated public and greater technological resources (which lead to more technology based jobs). And if/when those poorer countries start developing better-educated workforces, salaries there will rise, thus allowing at least some of those manufacturing jobs to return.

Ummm... how exactly does "anti-separatist belief" fly in the face of democracy? In a free society, you are allowed to discuss any issues you want, and allocate your vote to whatever criteria you feel is acceptable. Why is it 'anti-democratic' if I choose to use as my criteria a willingness to support a party seeking to break up the country? I rather suspect that none of the parties involved in the australia or UK coalitions had, as part of their platform, the desire to see their country break up.

Ummm... how about over the summer? From: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Duceppe+tells+world+another+referendum+coming/3144364/story.html The international community should brace for another referendum on Quebec sovereignty that will finally allow the province to become a country, said Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe in a newly released letter that was distributed around the world....“As I am sure you are aware, Quebec is a nation in its own right,” Duceppe wrote in the English version of the letter, dated June 9, 2010. “There is a strong political movement to make Quebec a sovereign country, free to levy its own taxes, make all of its own laws and conduct its own international relations. This desire for freedom, which pushes millions of Quebecers toward independence, is a strong political force.”

It doesn't matter exactly why Quebec voters are supporting them. The important issue is "how does the rest of Canada view the Bloc". They can act to block legislation that may be good for "the majority of Canada" but disagrees with their own agenda. They can use the house of commons as a forum to raise false issues that can be used to increase support for the cause of separation.

Yet those same scientists were able to publish their results in the journal Nature. Not a very effective act of censorship. Funding for things like NSERC also decreased when the Liberals formed the government (see my previous post). Were the Liberals having a "War on science" too? Ummm... that particular article was written by people supporting the Insite "safe injection site". Yet the authors of that particular article have failed to acknowledge the existence of at least some evidence indicating that such injection sites might be causing harm. From: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/157/3/275.pdf Needle exchange programs clearly are attracting a higher risk clientele. These findings give rise to concern that large needle exchange programs in metropolitan centres may be bringing together people who otherwise might not meet, thereby creating new social networks and fostering the mixing that has been shown to increase HIV transmission. Complaining that Harper is anti-science just because he disagrees with one researcher sounds more like sour grapes. Yet according to that article, the position of National Science Adviser was only created a few years ago. Was Trudeau, Mulroney or Chrietien "anti-science" for not having such an adviser? Ummm... I've got both a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in science. I've even taken multiple statistics courses (although I have to admit, I am fuzzy on some of the math, since it has been several years.) And at no point did they ever say voluntary survey's were "invalid". You do have to ensure proper sample selection but that applies to all surveys/census, mandatory or not.

You know, I'm a skeptic and a strong believer in science. In fact, I'd probably have to say I've done more to debunk creationists than anyone else on this forum. (I've challenged the false claims made by creationists, both here, in other forums, and in my personal life.) As such, I'm very familiar with the tactics used by the creationist movement. I have never heard a creationist say they "believe in evolution" without ever qualifying it by saying its "micro-evolution" that they actually accept (a bogus term, but one that they tend to favor.) To me, the "ramblings" make him sound like someone who is more likely just not familiar with the particulars of evolutionary theory (which of course doesn't preclude it from accepting it). Like I said, I don't necessarily support Goodyear (more because of his background as a chiropractor shows a lack of scientific credibility and skepticism), but I still stand by my claim that at this point nobody can claim they actually know about his true "beliefs" over evolution. Ummmm... I already pointed out: - The Liberals appointed a former Chiropractor (Ruby Dhalla) as health critic. Chiropractic treatments are sham medicine, and the basis of chiropractic treatments is based on faulty reasoning. Yet the Liberals actually placed such an individual in the position of health critic - I cannot point to individual members of the NDP who hold false beliefs, but in previous elections, the party platform included support for "complementary and alternative medicine" (Sorry, tried to find their platform from the previous election but haven't been able to.) Obviously, if its party policy, then a significant portion of the party must believe in such sham cures. Ummm... why do you consider it a 'red herring'? The original linked article mentioned that the scientist who was "censored" had already had their results published in the journal Nature (a very highly regarded interdisciplinary journal). The exact statement from the referenced article is: NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1.... Yet the scientist in the original article was still able to get his paper published in an academic journal. I see.... so was it also a "war on science" when the Liberals were in power and Paul Martin: cut funding for the granting councils by $77-million over three years. At the same time, the National Research Council's budget was cut by $76-million over three years.? (See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/ornithology-would-drive-liberal-science-policy/article976303/ ) Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the cuts in science, but I can understand the rational, given the current budget deficit. And while there's no guarantee that other parties would make similar cuts today, historically the Liberals had no problems making the same sort of cuts the conservatives did, all in the name of "fighting the deficit".

Here's something to think about... Which organization said (1n the early 1980s) that : ...A Canadian charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in a constitution is neither necessary nor desirable? Was it: A: Canadian Shooting Sports Association B: National Firearms Association of Canada C: Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police The answer is, of course, C. So, the organization that appears to be the most vocal in its support for the gun registry at one point didn't want us to have an enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Granted, I'm pretty sure any police chief that was involved in the early 1980s has long since retired, but still, it does show that perhaps the "Police Chiefs" can and do make questionable decisions. See: http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf (first paragraph)

I agree that the Tories are risking seats in Quebec over the issue. But why exactly are you suggesting Quebec voters would automatically swing over to the Liberals or NDP? Quebec voters have shown (through multiple elections) that they are willing to support the Bloc (even if they can't form the government). The important thing is not "can you form the government" but "Can you represent our interests". Voting for the party that forms the government may not be beneficial if the party has seats in other provinces (which must also receive the government's attention.).

the conservative ranks has more than a few western separatists among them some of them post in this forum.... Dedicated "Western separatists" (those who actually want to remove Alberta or other provinces out of Canada) are at best a minority movement and at this point do not appear to hold any significant power in any of the major federal parties. On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois does hold a significant number of seats in Quebec, and they have (as their policy) the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. You're right... the Bloc Quebecois (heck any party) has a perfectly legal right to push for the separation of their province from the rest of Canada. However, I (as a Canadian citizen) have the right to say that such policies regarding separation are wrong. Furthermore, I also have the right to view anyone who supports the Bloc Quebecois (either because they favor separation, or because they happen to like other elements of their platform) as contributing to the potential destabilization and breakup of Canada.

it never occured to you that there would be no way to verify that? do you have list or has anyone compiled a list of every Police response in the country that involved the registry and how it effected the police response? it's like saying the isolation of SARS patients was a waste of time because there were limited deaths and no epidemic? would it not make sense the point of the isolation was to prevent an epidemic and more deaths? and it worked...but by your logic it didn't work because people didn't die!...what a bizarre thought process... The difference between actions to stop SARS and the gun registry is that we can figure out a mechanism for how quarantines can save lives.... isolating patients prevents viral transmission. With the gun registry, its not as easy to figure out how it might actually save lives. By itself it does not prevent criminals from obtaining guns (the acquisition license does that), nor does it stop people from illegally obtaining guns. It also does nothing to prevent the misuse of firearms once they've been obtained (legally or illegally). Supporters of the registry like to claim it provides a warning of potential threats for police officers entering dangerous situations, but it ignores the fact that officers should already expect the possibility of violence regardless of what the firearm registry says.

Because, at this point in time (with our current political climate), any coalition to provide a majority will likely involve the Bloc. Given the fact that the Bloc is known for their separatist beliefs, the "rest of Canada" might end up viewing parties joining such a coalition as "consorting with traitors". (And yes, I do recognize that the conservatives courted Bloc support in the past... however, political rhetoric since then has made such coalitions politically dangerous.)

I doubt any coalition is planned. The Liberals would never vote to kill the registry because they were the ones who brought in the registry in the first place (and it would look bad to kill the program you brought in.) Most members of the NDP will support the registry because they want to increase their share of urban voters (who have a more favorable view of the registry than rural voters). And, lets face it, "gun control" is an issue that tends to get left-wing support. The conservatives may want to bring up the "coalition" boogey man, but given that any association with the Bloc would probably be a disaster at this point, its likely just rhetoric.

From the looks if it, that $60million/year is for the entire Canadian firearms program, and probably includes the cost of handgun registration and acquisition licenses. Even if we scrap the long gun registry, I doubt we'd get rid of all gun control (e.g. we'd still probably keep acquisition licenses), and as such we wouldn't save the entire $60 million annual cost. There are, however, other reasons to be suspicious of the $4 million claim... - If you look at the cost of the firearms program, it seems to fluctuate wildly (sometimes rising or falling by over $10 per year). - In one page of the report, it suggests that the RCMP were planning "system upgrades" for the 2009/10 fiscal year (i.e. a fiscal year not covered in the report). Those factors to me seem to suggest that the $4million cost might just be a low point (selected to make them "look good".)

Where do the profits of this revenue stream go, into whose coffers? Ummm... the CBC doesn't earn a profit. They actually get government support (to the tune of approximately $1 billion/year). That's what was meant when the poster talked about it getting 'tax revenue'. (So even if someone doesn't watch the CBC, they are still paying for it.) Actually, yes it would. Sun Media is majority owned by Quebecor. Quebcor is a publically traded company. Profits that it earns end up going back to the shareholders who are, in large part, Canadian citizens (either directly through dividend payments to stockholders, or through things like mutual funds/retirement funds.) In addition, as a private company, it is subject to various corporate taxes, which do end up in the coffers of the Canadian government.

Ummm...I said I accept there will always be tragic deaths and that we will probably always have incidents like the Montreal shootings. Like you I don't accept the idea the registry will do much if anything to prevent these incidents but I do think control will do a fair bit. If you say that you want to change the rules to prevent various shootings, then pretty much by definition you're not accepting the risk. Where exactly am I exhibiting 'faith'? I'm already expecting there to be unfortunate tragic deaths. No need for 'faith' there. Imagine how inconvenient it will be to go postal or domestic, as the case may be, with a gun. Already admitted there's a risk with legalized firearms possession, so your 'example' is pretty meaningless. I've already explained that such risks are simply something we have to accept as a cost of having certain freedoms/luxaries/etc. in our lives. Are you kidding? It's 2010, I'm amazed we don't have an automated system.... Annnnddd... there we go with the airy fairy magical pixie dust useless idea. Really, do you expect to be taken seriously when your 'solution' is to propose something that's not possible with current technology? And once again, I have to ask: Why the double standard? Why do you feel the deaths due to guns are so tragic, yet those deaths that can easily be prevented right now by banning private cars/swimming pools are irrelevant? (And please, answer it without returning to your magical pixie duest solution.) Oh I'm pretty sure there's one somewhere. Maybe its with your magical pixie dust cars. If you were in an area where you were not in controlled air space (i.e. to prevent mid air collisions) and you were not in a position to cause noise concerns with neighbors then yes, you'd probably be able to use your roof/back yard as a landing pad.

I've read the part of the report that deals with that particular 'survey'. Distribution of the survey (as well as responding to it) was optional. Officers were not picked 'at random'. As such, this poll was 'self selecting' and not scientific in any way. (Heck, I've posted several references to a poll that showed 92% of officers were opposed to the registry, although those references made it clear that it was a 'straw poll'... at least they admit it wasn't scientific.) The other thing to remember is that if I remember correctly, the RCMP report only had less than 300 "front line" officers responding, far less than the poll I referred to earlier which showed most officers wanting the registry scrapped.

Oh noes, the government is coming for your guns.... Registration doesn't equal confiscation. You're right it doesn't. But the original poster said that its the "first step". So, is there a reason for gun owners to be concerned? Its a tricky question, since it borders on paranoid conspiracy theories. However, there are a couple of things that should be remembered: - If I remember correctly, at the time the registry was put in place there were actually several changes put in place, one of which was a change in classification for some more exotic weapons (which went from being legal to being prohibited). Anyone who had such a weapon had to either turn it in, or otherwise disable it, ruining any sort of value the firearm had. If they did that once, what guarantee do gun owners have that the same thing won't happen again? (Sorry, I don't have any references for that, since it was so long ago.) - There have been some polls suggesting that the number of Canadians who want all guns banned is nearing a majority. (See: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Poll+support+shows+registry+debate+confuses+Canadians/3488352/story.html). Given the rather polarized nature of politics these days, is there any guarantee that no political party in the future will use a total gun ban as a way to increase popular support?

No one has backed this up with anything but anecdotes so far. Ummmm... I have. I already posted the results of a 'straw poll' that shows > 90% did not find the registry useful. (And yes, I do recognize that a straw poll is not scientific; however, after looking through the RCMP document, it appears their surveys of police officers is not scientific either. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/23/15116956.html I've found the RCMP report to be flawed. For example, they point to the fact that gun crime has been reduced since the registry has been put in place; yet they don't acknowledge that gun crime had already been decreasing before the registry was put in place. When a report contains such blatant problems, I find it difficult to trust it.

Actually, there were a lot of problems with Chernobyl... bad reactor design, incompetent personnel, improper oversight. Reactors in the western world are much better designed, and they aren't run by idiots who disable safety systems. Judging the safety of the CANDU (or any other reactor in Western Europe or North America) according to what happened in Chernobyl is like comparing apples to a dead woodchuck rotting on the pavement.