Call me strange but I happen to be a person that sees progress as having more than what you started with. Before the wheel we got every where by shank's mare (on your own feet) The wheel meant we could now ride every where or at least not have to carry everything on our backs. Domestication of animals meant we had beast power instead of man power.
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was not putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Copenhagen And The Green Shirts
Carbon, public enemy number one today? I find it had to believe that the element every living thing is dependent upon is going to set the world on fire. At least metaphorically speaking. Indeed it has been said that this element when used as fuel becomes the evil carbon dioxide gas, a greenhouse gas...But wait a minute 97% of the CO2 is from natural sources including every living creature when it exhales. The remaining 3% comes from human activities.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Dec 6 L'Ecole Polytechnique, emotional rhetoric to a political end
Today Dec 6th marks the anniversary of the shooting at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. My thoughts are with the survivors and families of the victims.
I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.
I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.
There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".
In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.
The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.
It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.
That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.
Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..
I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.
I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.
There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".
In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.
The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.
It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.
That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.
Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..
Sunday, November 15, 2009
2012 Count Down to Doomsday
I have resisted writing about this for some time, now I am giving into it with the release of the blockbuster Movie 2012. What is the fascination with the end of the world anyway? It is nothing new, people have been telling us the end is nigh for some time. Y2K was supposed to be the year the last trip round the doomsday clock. Now the date from the Mayan calendar is the new doomsday. Every prophet or prophecy I have encountered over the years never has any good news. Is it a case of collective guilt and collective bitterness between the haves and the have nots of the world? A “We don’t deserve our good fortune.” Coalescing with “You SOBs will get yours” perfect storm? I don’t know really but we seem to get preoccupied by doom every now and again.
According to the latest round the doomsday prophets the clock is set for December 21, 2012. This date is taken from the Mayans, a stone age civilization of pre-Columbian North America. The Maya were advanced for their time they developed a system of mathematics and conceived of numbers less than zero. However they built everything out of stone and obsidian they were not the most technologically advanced. They believed in a Pantheon of Gods which resembled animals natural to their environment and fed these gods with an endless line of human sacrifice. Not exactly a civilization I would hang any predictions on.
According to those who have studied the Maya they did not predict the end of the world. The mystery if you will is around the question of why the calendar ends when it does. If they were the great predictors as they are made out to be why didn’t it end when their civilization ended in 900 ce. Guess they didn’t see it coming.
They were the top tribe in the area if you will, if you were Mayan you were tops. Not likely to be the sacrifice. Perhaps it was their arrogance that produced a calendar that went so far into the future, more years than anyone could count was impressive. Perhaps being the regions master race they like our modern Nazis types(the thousand year Reich) were showing their superiority by stating that they would be around forever. In any case I haven’t met any ancient Mayans to ask them.
The truth is the world has ended thousands of times in our recorded and unrecorded history. We modern types seem to view the world as being the whole planet since we have knowledge of its totality. However many ancients only had concept of the world as what existed in the area that they could walk. What existed beyond that was terra incognita and was left to the imagination of what lay beyond that. A devastating earth quake or volcano could end the world they knew. So why would it be any different for the Maya.
So I will be bold and make a prediction, December 21st 2012 will come and go like every other 21st of December. Maybe with a little more fan fare than others. We also need to realize that a calendar running out is not cause for doom it just means its creators were not around to update it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Enough Rhetoric, Hyperbole and Hubris
I am somewhat dismayed by the mainstream press, I have seen a great deal of ink decrying the end of the Long Gun Registry with the usual tired spin. All presented as gospel with little basis in truth or fact. Paid columnist doing their jobs of pontificating both theirs and that of editorial board’s views of the gun registry. I can say with a degree of confidence that none own firearms and have had no dealings with the firearms bureaucracy. Rarely is there balance shown, with the usual suspects being held up as experts on the topic. More is the pity, when democracy is exercised in the House of Commons and the outcome is not to their liking it is construed as a cheap political trick. On the other hand when a bill is rammed through a majority House, Senate and Committees unchanged that’s democracy in action? I am of the firm belief that all Bills in the House of Commons should be private members Bills (excepting the Budget), debated and voted on freely. That way laws would be enacted based on their utility and merit rather than partisan party lines.
Our rebuttals are confined to the limited number of words that can be published in a letter to the editor. With no guarantee the entire letter will be published as is or published at all. Indeed we are kept a vocal minority.
To address this in a rational fashion we need to put a wee bit of background into the public’s view. In Canada for over a hundred years no citizen has had to have either a licence nor register a shotgun nor a rifle. Up until 1977 anyone could walk into a gun shop pick out a rifle or shotgun pay for it and leave. The sale was recorded at the shop that was the end of it. After 1977 a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) was required in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun. This was not a licence part of getting an FAC was a criminal background check however the long guns already owned by an individual were still legal. AG Kim Campbell enacted the requirement of a safety course to obtain a FAC. Bill C-68 changed all that, as of 1995 it was illegal to own any firearm, unless you were the holder of a licence and all firearms in your possession were registered. Imagine a Government granting a licence to break the law? A tad absurd if you ask me.
What is the big deal? We register vehicles and licence their drivers. This is both true and false, the more correct way of putting it would be, we licence drivers and register vehicles for use on public roads. No requirement of either is required if the driver and vehicle do not leave private property. Nor is it a criminal offence if you drive without a licence or registered said vehicle. Nor does the emergency response team from your local constabulary kick in your door in the wee smalls of the morning to seize all your vehicles and lay criminal charges either. The MTOs are also very efficient at sending out renewal papers and there are numerous locations to visit to renew your licence and vehicle registrations. For firearms owners there is only one method via Canada Post. So it is only true up to the point that they are licences and registrations after that the similarity ends. I would also add that an individual may own any vehicle they wish to, no restrictions are placed on the type of vehicle nor does one receive a visit from law enforcement to inspect said vehicles.
It is a valuable tool. I might just be too simple to understand but I have always been of the opinion that a tool actually achieves something. Whether that is a shovel to dig a hole or a DNA profile to prove the presence of a person at a crime scene or to exclude them. It is said that the registry connects an individual to a firearm and holds them accountable. Of course this is only true if a person is foolish enough to commit a crime with a registered firearm and hang on to it. Even so it is irrelevant because in law it makes little difference if a person is shot with a registered firearm or an unregistered firearm. For that matter even if it is a borrowed registered firearm. The registry is also inaccurate so inaccurate that it cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. If a patrol officer responding to a call queries the registry and finds no guns at the location should he believe that and let his guard down? Police in the United States do not have the luxury of universal registry of firearms yet they seem to function quite effectively. In the UK where registration is mandatory and quite onerous, so much so that many Britains have in fact turned in their firearms rather than go through the red tape to keep them. Further to that handguns have banned since 1998, have had to start arming their police because crimes involving firearms has increased not declined as one would think. The UK is the most violent country in the EU with 2034 violent crimes per population of 100 000. We in Canada have nothing to be smug about we ranked in at #6 on that survey. Whereas our gun toting neighbours to the south who are often held up as the example of why guns are evil didn’t even make the top ten in that survey. We were promised by Mr Alan Rock that crime would plummet with the registry in place. So where is this efficacy?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are strong supporters of the registry. In a Globe and Mail article last April it was reported that their ethics officer resigned over their associations practice of receiving corporate donations Taser International was a large contributor, low and behold the use of their product received their ringing endorsement for use in law enforcement despite the fatalities directly attributed to their use. Oddly enough CGI group another large contributor to the association which coincidently are also contractors for the registry, now receive a ringing endorsement viz their support of the registry. This moves them out of the realm of professional organization to political lobby. It could be also said that a Police Chief is long removed from a patrol car and out of touch with his frontline officers. Further the hiring of a Chief is done by the local politicians, the renewal of one’s contract could be tied more to politics than performance.
It prevents gun crime, Again I must be too simple because I am not seeing the Emperor’s new clothes on this. How does having a piece of paper (the registration slip) stop a crime? The bad guys could steal a registered rifle, file the serial number off and the registry is defeated. In theory anyone could commit a crime today and report their firearm stolen yesterday. Again where is the rational connection to prevention? Kimveer Gil used registered firearms at the Dawson College shooting, the only thing the registry did was confirm they were his. That is cold comfort for his victim’s family. Gamil Gharbi of the Polytechnique shooting, if his rifle had been registered would the registration slip have sounded an alarm alerting people to his presence? Would it have sprung to life and barred him from leaving his home that day? No it could not. So where is its utility?
If it saves one life is it not worth the money spent? I don’t think that this is the correct question. I think the question is, has it saved one life? With the true costs hidden in Cabinet secrecy we will never know its true costs. Though 2 billion dollars is the figure often cited. Another fair question becomes how many more lives could have been saved by allocating those funds elsewhere? Two billion dollars could have funded many programs with direct and tangible results in crime reduction. Youth recovery programs come to mind. It has been cited that it costs $24 000 per youth to recover them from gangs, which translates out to 83 000 lives saved from a violent life and possible death. Every shelter for women in the country could have been funded for 15 years. Though perhaps the money would be better spent trying to eliminate the need for such shelters. How about an MRI in every hospital? Thousands of lives could be saved with that annually. Thus far to date the money spent on the registry remains squandered resources with 0 results.
Our rebuttals are confined to the limited number of words that can be published in a letter to the editor. With no guarantee the entire letter will be published as is or published at all. Indeed we are kept a vocal minority.
To address this in a rational fashion we need to put a wee bit of background into the public’s view. In Canada for over a hundred years no citizen has had to have either a licence nor register a shotgun nor a rifle. Up until 1977 anyone could walk into a gun shop pick out a rifle or shotgun pay for it and leave. The sale was recorded at the shop that was the end of it. After 1977 a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) was required in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun. This was not a licence part of getting an FAC was a criminal background check however the long guns already owned by an individual were still legal. AG Kim Campbell enacted the requirement of a safety course to obtain a FAC. Bill C-68 changed all that, as of 1995 it was illegal to own any firearm, unless you were the holder of a licence and all firearms in your possession were registered. Imagine a Government granting a licence to break the law? A tad absurd if you ask me.
What is the big deal? We register vehicles and licence their drivers. This is both true and false, the more correct way of putting it would be, we licence drivers and register vehicles for use on public roads. No requirement of either is required if the driver and vehicle do not leave private property. Nor is it a criminal offence if you drive without a licence or registered said vehicle. Nor does the emergency response team from your local constabulary kick in your door in the wee smalls of the morning to seize all your vehicles and lay criminal charges either. The MTOs are also very efficient at sending out renewal papers and there are numerous locations to visit to renew your licence and vehicle registrations. For firearms owners there is only one method via Canada Post. So it is only true up to the point that they are licences and registrations after that the similarity ends. I would also add that an individual may own any vehicle they wish to, no restrictions are placed on the type of vehicle nor does one receive a visit from law enforcement to inspect said vehicles.
It is a valuable tool. I might just be too simple to understand but I have always been of the opinion that a tool actually achieves something. Whether that is a shovel to dig a hole or a DNA profile to prove the presence of a person at a crime scene or to exclude them. It is said that the registry connects an individual to a firearm and holds them accountable. Of course this is only true if a person is foolish enough to commit a crime with a registered firearm and hang on to it. Even so it is irrelevant because in law it makes little difference if a person is shot with a registered firearm or an unregistered firearm. For that matter even if it is a borrowed registered firearm. The registry is also inaccurate so inaccurate that it cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. If a patrol officer responding to a call queries the registry and finds no guns at the location should he believe that and let his guard down? Police in the United States do not have the luxury of universal registry of firearms yet they seem to function quite effectively. In the UK where registration is mandatory and quite onerous, so much so that many Britains have in fact turned in their firearms rather than go through the red tape to keep them. Further to that handguns have banned since 1998, have had to start arming their police because crimes involving firearms has increased not declined as one would think. The UK is the most violent country in the EU with 2034 violent crimes per population of 100 000. We in Canada have nothing to be smug about we ranked in at #6 on that survey. Whereas our gun toting neighbours to the south who are often held up as the example of why guns are evil didn’t even make the top ten in that survey. We were promised by Mr Alan Rock that crime would plummet with the registry in place. So where is this efficacy?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are strong supporters of the registry. In a Globe and Mail article last April it was reported that their ethics officer resigned over their associations practice of receiving corporate donations Taser International was a large contributor, low and behold the use of their product received their ringing endorsement for use in law enforcement despite the fatalities directly attributed to their use. Oddly enough CGI group another large contributor to the association which coincidently are also contractors for the registry, now receive a ringing endorsement viz their support of the registry. This moves them out of the realm of professional organization to political lobby. It could be also said that a Police Chief is long removed from a patrol car and out of touch with his frontline officers. Further the hiring of a Chief is done by the local politicians, the renewal of one’s contract could be tied more to politics than performance.
It prevents gun crime, Again I must be too simple because I am not seeing the Emperor’s new clothes on this. How does having a piece of paper (the registration slip) stop a crime? The bad guys could steal a registered rifle, file the serial number off and the registry is defeated. In theory anyone could commit a crime today and report their firearm stolen yesterday. Again where is the rational connection to prevention? Kimveer Gil used registered firearms at the Dawson College shooting, the only thing the registry did was confirm they were his. That is cold comfort for his victim’s family. Gamil Gharbi of the Polytechnique shooting, if his rifle had been registered would the registration slip have sounded an alarm alerting people to his presence? Would it have sprung to life and barred him from leaving his home that day? No it could not. So where is its utility?
If it saves one life is it not worth the money spent? I don’t think that this is the correct question. I think the question is, has it saved one life? With the true costs hidden in Cabinet secrecy we will never know its true costs. Though 2 billion dollars is the figure often cited. Another fair question becomes how many more lives could have been saved by allocating those funds elsewhere? Two billion dollars could have funded many programs with direct and tangible results in crime reduction. Youth recovery programs come to mind. It has been cited that it costs $24 000 per youth to recover them from gangs, which translates out to 83 000 lives saved from a violent life and possible death. Every shelter for women in the country could have been funded for 15 years. Though perhaps the money would be better spent trying to eliminate the need for such shelters. How about an MRI in every hospital? Thousands of lives could be saved with that annually. Thus far to date the money spent on the registry remains squandered resources with 0 results.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
For the Greater Good...
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson
Justice Minister Nichols (CPC) Is currently kicking around a piece of legislation that if enacted would give Police unprecedented powers. Why is are they unprecedented? Chiefly because this legislation would allow police to pull over any car and its occupants for absolutely no reason to administer a breathalyzer.
This is a practise that is currently taking place in a few European jurisdictions, the Netherlands to name one. I cannot speak for or to the laws of European countries as I am unfamiliar with them, nay ignorant of them. However I am very familiar with the laws of Canada. To be perfectly honest I really don't care what they are doing in Europe, Europe was a place not too long ago that rounded people up at the behest of a certain occupier of their countries. A place where identity cards had to be carried at all times and presented when commanded.
I have grown up with a belief that in Europe the powers that be were omnipotent and people do as they are told. Right or wrong that is my impression of Europe. Where there is a trust in their legislators and a belief in "It's all for our own good". I have this belief largely because of WW II and that democracy is a relatively new idea in many European Countries. Call it a bit of English snobbery where democracy is not so new an idea and there is a long tradition of Liberty.
In Countries where Roman Law or Civil Code are the basis of their legal tradition view things differently than Countries with a Common Law tradition. But enough said of this. As I have said I only care about Canadian Law which as it so happens is founded upon the Common Law tradition except in Quebec which the Civil Code is still used in a BiJural system.
We in Canada have the written guarantee of certain rights. Sadly many of my fellow Canadians take their freedom and their rights for granted, more is the pity many can't even name 3 rights they hold under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I am of the opinion some days that my fellow countrymen place little value upon their rights and will allow their Government to pass legislation that slices away at their rights and in the end their freedoms.
For the "Greater Good" or for "Public Safety" seem to be acceptable reasons for "waiving" your civil rights. Many of us who go on about rights and speak of the "thin end of the edge" or the "slippery slope", always sound annoying, preachy, and worst of all BORING. Well my fellow citizens welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
This law if enacted will give every police officer the right to pull us over when ever they feel like it, demand that we blow into a tube whether we have had a drink or not. They do not require probable cause anymore.
Of course many people are saying "So? They are looking for drivers who have been drinking, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.". Thats fair, I hope their cough syrup is alcohol free or their mouth wash is. With the lower thresholds that some Provincial Governments have introduced you may blow a false positive. Now we are no longer talking about a minor inconvenience. You will then be commanded to accompany them to the station for the proper test conducted by the certified technician, or possibly a court ordered blood test. (of course they will give you a lift in the back of their car)
Did I mention that while all of this was happening you were technically under arrest? Indeed you were, in fact arbitrarily detained. Which by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supposed to happen. Ah heck, it isn't supposed to happen in a free and democratic society with or without a charter of rights.
A small part of me wishes this law to pass, not because I think it is right, heck no,, This small part me is the "wise acre" that wants to say I told you so, when the knock comes at your door one day and its the local constabulary wanting to come in and look around and make sure no laws are being broken. You can't protest because you have already waived your rights, you waived them long ago. With each passage of a law that took away a slice of your rights. When you just nodded in silent agreement with every law that was enacted for the "public good". I hope we all wake up sooner than later for it will be too late if our democracy will have gave way to a police state.
-- Lyndon B. Johnson
Justice Minister Nichols (CPC) Is currently kicking around a piece of legislation that if enacted would give Police unprecedented powers. Why is are they unprecedented? Chiefly because this legislation would allow police to pull over any car and its occupants for absolutely no reason to administer a breathalyzer.
This is a practise that is currently taking place in a few European jurisdictions, the Netherlands to name one. I cannot speak for or to the laws of European countries as I am unfamiliar with them, nay ignorant of them. However I am very familiar with the laws of Canada. To be perfectly honest I really don't care what they are doing in Europe, Europe was a place not too long ago that rounded people up at the behest of a certain occupier of their countries. A place where identity cards had to be carried at all times and presented when commanded.
I have grown up with a belief that in Europe the powers that be were omnipotent and people do as they are told. Right or wrong that is my impression of Europe. Where there is a trust in their legislators and a belief in "It's all for our own good". I have this belief largely because of WW II and that democracy is a relatively new idea in many European Countries. Call it a bit of English snobbery where democracy is not so new an idea and there is a long tradition of Liberty.
In Countries where Roman Law or Civil Code are the basis of their legal tradition view things differently than Countries with a Common Law tradition. But enough said of this. As I have said I only care about Canadian Law which as it so happens is founded upon the Common Law tradition except in Quebec which the Civil Code is still used in a BiJural system.
We in Canada have the written guarantee of certain rights. Sadly many of my fellow Canadians take their freedom and their rights for granted, more is the pity many can't even name 3 rights they hold under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I am of the opinion some days that my fellow countrymen place little value upon their rights and will allow their Government to pass legislation that slices away at their rights and in the end their freedoms.
For the "Greater Good" or for "Public Safety" seem to be acceptable reasons for "waiving" your civil rights. Many of us who go on about rights and speak of the "thin end of the edge" or the "slippery slope", always sound annoying, preachy, and worst of all BORING. Well my fellow citizens welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
This law if enacted will give every police officer the right to pull us over when ever they feel like it, demand that we blow into a tube whether we have had a drink or not. They do not require probable cause anymore.
Of course many people are saying "So? They are looking for drivers who have been drinking, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.". Thats fair, I hope their cough syrup is alcohol free or their mouth wash is. With the lower thresholds that some Provincial Governments have introduced you may blow a false positive. Now we are no longer talking about a minor inconvenience. You will then be commanded to accompany them to the station for the proper test conducted by the certified technician, or possibly a court ordered blood test. (of course they will give you a lift in the back of their car)
Did I mention that while all of this was happening you were technically under arrest? Indeed you were, in fact arbitrarily detained. Which by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supposed to happen. Ah heck, it isn't supposed to happen in a free and democratic society with or without a charter of rights.
A small part of me wishes this law to pass, not because I think it is right, heck no,, This small part me is the "wise acre" that wants to say I told you so, when the knock comes at your door one day and its the local constabulary wanting to come in and look around and make sure no laws are being broken. You can't protest because you have already waived your rights, you waived them long ago. With each passage of a law that took away a slice of your rights. When you just nodded in silent agreement with every law that was enacted for the "public good". I hope we all wake up sooner than later for it will be too late if our democracy will have gave way to a police state.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Republic of Canada
What an idea!. Canada becoming a Republic, while I can appreciate and understand why some would be hesitant about becoming a republic I believe it is an idea that has merit.
I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.
The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.
Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.
While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.
There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.
As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.
But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.
It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.
We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.
I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.
The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.
Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.
While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.
There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.
As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.
But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.
It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.
We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
