Election 2015

[GAP]

You know...............maybe we're making a mistake.


We've gone and arrested these muslims that were planning to blow up things when all they needed was a big group hug and a few bars of Kumm Bya.

Gee, I'm torn....... :

 

[ballz]

Don't mind?  Or don't want to see it not allowed?  I'm not clear on what you mean, sorry.

The day we don't see protesters in the streets...

So far, as I see it, C-51 has no real affect on 'honest folk' who abide by the Law.  I wonder why those who oppose C-51 are so vocal?  What do they have to hide?  Do they have criminal pasts, current criminal activities, or future criminal intentions?  What kind of skeletons are they hiding in their closets?

:facepalm:

Wow... I guess we should make all law-abiding citizens register their guns then right? And be subject to a police officer coming to "inspect" their firearms for safety? After all, if you're "honest folk" this has no affect on your right? What have you got to hide?

What do we even need legal rights for? If you're "honest folk," you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[observor 69]

Thanks for that ballz. BZ

 

[George Wallace]

:facepalm:

Wow... I guess we should make all law-abiding citizens register their guns then right?

If we have no registry, why?

And be subject to a police officer coming to "inspect" their firearms for safety? After all, if you're "honest folk" this has no affect on your right? What have you got to hide?

With a warrant and due cause?  WTF are you going on about?

What do we even need legal rights for? If you're "honest folk," you've got nothing to worry about.

If you are not breaking the Law, what would you have to fear?  LEO's don't have the rights to just walk in and search you without cause.









OH!  I see......I posted and you had go get in some digs......


Sorry.....Back to our normal channels.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So far, as I see it, C-51 has no real affect on 'honest folk' who abide by the Law.  I wonder why those who oppose C-51 are so vocal?  What do they have to hide?  Do they have criminal pasts, current criminal activities, or future criminal intentions?  What kind of skeletons are they hiding in their closets?

George, I'm a card carrying, dues paying Conservative; I'm in favour of Canada having efficient and effective security services but I find many elements of C-51 to be ill-conceived, unnecessary and, in a few cases, actual threats to the liberty we, Conservatives, should want to protect.

I totally reject your "honest folk" notion: it is juvenile, the last resort of those defending the indefensible.

We need strong, clear "official secrets" laws and regulations to protect information which is really secret (as opposed to just embarrassing to the powers that be) and we need strong, clear "threat to Canada" laws and regulations, too ... and then we need to ensure that regulations allow our security services to snoop with judicial oversight and to protect sources from everyone except judges and we need to press our legal cases in courts and the trust the judicial system.

We have to trust someone in our society. I don't trust elected politicians; I have slightly more, but not much, trust in most public servants (including those in the uniformed and security services (police, CF, CSIS, etc)); I totally mistrust the media ... I do trust judges. I don't always agree with what they decide but it is my firm belief that most judges are the most honest and ethical of all public servants.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mark Sutciffe, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, offers some election advice to Prime Minister Harper:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sutcliffe-retirement-pledge-could-help-harper

A pledge to retire could help Harper

Columnist Mark Sutcliffe

Published on: May 28, 2015

No matter what the outcome of the next federal election, there’s a strong possibility that this will be Stephen Harper’s last campaign as Conservative leader.

If Harper loses the election or wins only a slim minority, his fate will be determined. But even if he wins a majority or a substantial minority, a countdown of sorts will begin. With a victory, he will join an exclusive club: only four prime ministers have received four mandates from the Canadian people. Nothing is impossible, but no leader in Canadian history has won five straight elections.

Depending on the strength of his win and personal considerations about his future, Harper could end up serving anywhere from just over 10 to almost 14 years in office. At the outer edge of that range, he would achieve the second-longest uninterrupted term in Canadian history. Not bad for a man who many predicted would never become prime minister in the first place.

There’s no doubt Harper enjoys the job or he wouldn’t be running again. Very few leaders step down until they are forced to by reality or other threats. Most of them probably look back on the worst days in office as being more fulfilling than many of the best days afterward.

But even after a win, Harper would have to acknowledge that he would be pressing his luck to try for another term. So why not borrow a page from David Cameron (the British prime minister, not the Senators coach) and say right up front that this will be his last campaign?

Cameron announced early in the recent U.K. campaign that if he was re-elected he would serve a full five-year term (the next fixed election date in Britain is in 2020). “The job is half done,” Cameron told the BBC in March. “I want to finish the job.” But he said he would not run again for a third term. “There definitely comes a time when a fresh pair of eyes and fresh leadership would be good,” he said.

Harper is a polarizing figure, but he’s more experienced and, to some Canadians, a safer choice than Justin Trudeau. If he makes it clear that he’ll step aside before the next election, it could mitigate some inevitable voter fatigue and give comfort to undecided voters that they are not sustaining a never-ending dynasty by giving him a final mandate.

It’s clear the sentiment is one that even the Conservatives have considered. Their most recent attack ad cleverly acknowledges that voters are already thinking ahead to life after Harper. Regarding Trudeau’s lack of experience, one actor in the commercial says, “I’m not saying no forever. But not now.”

A self-imposed term limit would create similar dynamics to an incumbent U.S. president running for a final term. Unless there’s a compelling reason to throw someone out after four years, Americans often default to a second term with comfort that there’s no risk of the president developing a permanent stranglehold on power.

Most politicians don’t like to talk too early about retirement for fear of becoming a lame duck. And some strategists might argue that announcing an end date could backfire on Harper, with some voters deciding if he’s already thinking about leaving in a few years, they might as well make a change now.

But the current political landscape might be ideal for such an announcement. Despite the fact that the Conservatives have been in power almost a decade, Canadians are not yet forming a significant consensus around an alternative to Harper. Some undecided voters might put up with him a bit longer if they knew there was a fixed end date.

The next election will be about a wide range of issues, but leadership is always a major consideration for voters. Harper is often accused of being arrogant; talking about his future in finite terms would make him seem more fallible and less determined to hold on to power indefinitely. It can’t have escaped his attention that a similar promise helped produce for Cameron exactly what he seeks in October: a surprising majority.

Mr. Sutcliffe's proposal is to give Canadians a "no risk" option: you/we let Harper "finish the (economic) job" but we will not be asked to re-elect him again and again ... he's done.

I think it's good advice ... and I happen to like Prime Minister Harper, and many (certainly not all) of his policies, and want him to win in 2015.

 

[Kilo_302]

Neither did Nazism to begin with, and look what it took to clean that mess up once people finally woke up.

Those who fail to learn from history...

Ironically, Steven Blaney cited the Nazis as well when defending C-51. The attack on the Reichstag is generally viewed as a key event that solidified their grip on power, and this is the very same situation Canada is in. I'm not comparing the government to the Nazi party, but the parallels should be obvious here.  Some mentally ill man attacks parliament and our government decides this is cause to pass legislation which legalizes spying on Canadian citizens, gives CSIS arrest powers, etc etc. Those who fail to learn from history indeed. You're making my point for me.

 

[Kilo_302]

LOL!  It must be great to live in ignorant bliss. 

Oh well, some of us know better.

Well no, some of us don't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

The threat of terrorism is miniscule in the West. You seem like a paranoid-about-the-government kind of guy. Are you really going to allow our government to raise the spectre of terrorism in order to crush political dissent and spy on Canadian citizens? Again, legal experts across the country are raising the alarm C-51. Nearly all of our papers (including the National Post and the Globe and Mail) have come out against it. If you're so afraid of a threat that is demonstrably nearly non-existent, you're hysterical and making no sense.

 

[Kilo_302]

The NDP is against C-51.  Big deal.  The NDP is also not the party in government, and therefore also not privy to all of the information the government has.

Thought experiment: if the NDP were the government, would the NDP take a different position?

If you think not, observe what is happening across the border: President Obama, no right-wing security fanatic he, is asking for Patriot Act eavesdropping provisions to essentially be renewed as they stand.

Obama is a joke. He's a Wall Street president, just like Bush before him. The fact that he's considered left wing is a testament to where we are as a society. Sure, he's pro gay marriage, and he might even legalize pot. But he's been bought and paid for, so have the Democrats in general. And our vaunted Liberal Party and NDP are the same.

All of this surveillance isn't really about terrorism, it's about power. Obama might be a reasonable man, but the structures and system he's governing in has seen him win a Nobel Peace Prize while he's allowing drones to kill American citizens without a trial. This is insanity.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Obama is a joke. He's a Wall Street president ... the structures and system he's governing in has seen him win a Nobel Peace Prize while he's allowing drones to kill American citizens without a trial. This is insanity.

I don't disagree, Kilo_302, and I don't disagree that politics on our side of the border are no better: (smart) people pandering to the unreasonable fears and prejudices of the masses ... but, and it's a BIG BUT, our current form of liberal, secular, responsible (Australia, Britain, Canada etc) or representative (US and a few others) government is, even in its deeply flawed states (and those flaws, and others, exist equally in Sweden and Norway, too), better than anything else that's on offer.

Now, you and I are poles apart on economic policies ~ I think you're a damned fool, because I'm certain that all socialists are damned, ignorant fools ~ but we share a common belief, I think (maybe just hope) that we can and should do better for our societies; that's why you're not on ignore.

 

[Kilo_302]

I don't disagree, Kilo_302, and I don't disagree that politics on our side of the border are no better: (smart) people pandering to the unreasonable fears and prejudices of the masses ... but, and it's a BIG BUT, our current form of liberal, secular, responsible (Australia, Britain, Canada etc) or representative (US and a few others) government is, even in its deeply flawed states (and those flaws, and others, exist equally in Sweden and Norway, too), better than anything else that's on offer.

Now, you and I are poles apart on economic policies ~ I think you're a damned fool, because I'm certain that all socialists are damned, ignorant fools ~ but we share a common belief, I think (maybe just hope) that we can and should do better for our societies; that's why you're not on ignore.

I could be a damned fool, but I would like to have your thoughts on those pesky socialist Scandinavian countries. They aren't socialist through and through, but they are countries that I would like to see Canada emulate in some ways. Capitalist economies, heavily regulated, free post-secondary, excellent healthcare and quality of life etc etc. They aren't perfect, but if we're saying that liberal democracies are the closest thing we have to perfection ( and I agree with you on this) I would argue that these countries are the most perfect of us liberal democracies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes, Kilo_302, but I'm an very, very old fashioned liberal and, in fact, I'm also, simultaneously, an odd sort of Confucian conservative. I believe, firmly and fully, in the rights to life, liberty and property, as defined by John Locke in 18th century England, and to privacy, as defined by Brandeis and Warren in 19th century America. I don't believe in much else.

The Scandinavians, like the Canadians, are not liberal enough for me and the Singaporeans are a wee bit too conservative.


Edit: corrected name of the person to whom I was responding

 

[George Wallace]

Well no, some of us don't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

The threat of terrorism is miniscule in the West. You seem like a paranoid-about-the-government kind of guy. Are you really going to allow our government to raise the spectre of terrorism in order to crush political dissent and spy on Canadian citizens? Again, legal experts across the country are raising the alarm C-51. Nearly all of our papers (including the National Post and the Globe and Mail) have come out against it. If you're so afraid of a threat that is demonstrably nearly non-existent, you're hysterical and making no sense.

How about 'second-hand smoke'?  How many of us non-smokers are going to die from second-hand smoke?  Really!  Now; how many steps have we as a society taken to prevent people from having to inhale second-hand smoke?  Now substitute 'terrorism' for 'second-hand smoke'.

I have not tried to make this overly complicated.  Just keeping it stupid simple.  If the government is monitoring me, my internet, my land line, my cell, etc. and I am not saying or doing anything illegal, then whatever they gather is going to ignored and not kept in a database.  I have nothing to fear if I am not a criminal, some sort of subversive or any other threat to the nation and society. 

I do not believe in frustrating our LEO's and Security and Intelligence professionals in protecting me from those who would do me harm.  I do not like the fact that currently we have so many loopholes in our system that often penalize the victims of crime and are lenient towards the perpetrators of illegal activities.  We have a Legal System that clearly lays out how the LEO, Security and Intelligence services must act.  I agree with ERC that "oversight" is necessary to ensure that those who are there to protect us do stay within the bounds of the Law.  Politicians and media who have their own agendas, always make me suspicious.  The latest example of that mistrust could be the Omar Khadr tells his Guantanamo story in new documentary on CBC.  We have numerous terrorist related cases already in Canada, where various agencies have been hamstrung by legalities allowing less than innocent accused to have been set free to walk among us.  To me, cleaning up our legal loopholes that prevent such cases from prosecuting perpetrators to the fullest extent of the Law with all evidence to be within legal parameters.

Remember; we still have a stringent Legal System, the Charter of Human Rights and numerous other legislation and Laws to protect our Rights and Liberties.  Whether or not C-51 is passed depends on our elected parliamentarians following the rules of parliament, not sensationalist propaganda from fringe elements.

 

[Kirkhill]

I could be a damned fool, but I would like to have your thoughts on those pesky socialist Scandinavian countries. They aren't socialist through and through, but they are countries that I would like to see Canada emulate in some ways. Capitalist economies, heavily regulated, free post-secondary, excellent healthcare and quality of life etc etc. They aren't perfect, but if we're saying that liberal democracies are the closest thing we have to perfection ( and I agree with you on this) I would argue that these countries are the most perfect of us liberal democracies.

Kilo - In my opinion the countries you fancy are largely what are now known as "Corporatist" economies.  They are heavily influenced by the economic policies of both the Catholic Socialists (also known as Fascists) and the National Socialists (also known as Nazis).  Needless to say they do not adhere to the same social policies as either one of those.  But they are heavily regulated societies.  For ill as well as good.

They have not made crime go away.  And they have discovered that people still need to work to pay the bills and that one of the best ways to control the cost of services is to make sure the consumer has some skin in the game in the form of user fees.

 

[Kilo_302]

Sure, and I agree that they aren't perfect. But let's examine their policies that work and conduct our own cost-benefit analysis instead of rejecting any form of government intervention (not saying you are). Norway for example has managed it's oil wealth far better than Canada, and that required direct state intervention. Whereas we sell off the Canadian Wheat Board  (on the cusp of what many think will be a "food boom") Norway formed Statoil and the result has been well documented.

A form of wealth redistribution already exists in this country in the form of income tax. We also grant corporations massive subsidies and in return they ship jobs overseas. Are we getting the best bang for our buck? When societies become as inequitable as we are becoming they also become unstable and susceptible to radical elements on the left AND the right. If Roosevelt is famous for saving capitalism, let's look at how he did it. In my opinion, the bargain between labour and capital has been consistently shifting in favour of capital since World War 2. Capital has been chipping away at the welfare state since then, and it's clear that's largely the reason for many of our problems. The good old days (1950s for example) many conservatives seem to yearn for saw us taxing top earners at 80%, affordable university, well funded social programs, strong unions and also the greatest period of economic growth we've ever seen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Have you considered that the "Chipping Away By Capitalism" that you describe is just the natural order of things as the pendulum swings back to center?

Our movement forward in time always looks to me like the graph of any control system.  It is characterized by overshooting and undershooting the target.  The system is designed to bring itself back towards the target.  The average is maintained.  The system stays in balance but it is never static. 

The question of whether or not the system is in control is more one of does the pendulum continue to swing and does it swing radically.  Neither stasis nor radical swings are desirable. 

Which actually is appropriate when thinking about the desire by some to target a minority government.  The control is not that precise.  Elections, like the stockmarket, run on emotions.  If people start looking for a particular outcome they are more likely to undershoot or overshoot than hit the mark.

 

[Kilo_302]

Have you considered that the "Chipping Away By Capitalism" that you describe is just the natural order of things as the pendulum swings back to center?

Our movement forward in time always looks to me like the graph of any control system.  It is characterized by overshooting and undershooting the target.  The system is designed to bring itself back towards the target.  The average is maintained.  The system stays in balance but it is never static. 

The question of whether or not the system is in control is more one of does the pendulum continue to swing and does it swing radically.  Neither stasis nor radical swings are desirable. 

Which actually is appropriate when thinking about the desire by some to target a minority government.  The control is not that precise.  Elections, like the stockmarket, run on emotions.  If people start looking for a particular outcome they are more likely to undershoot or overshoot than hit the mark.

Let's look at the effects on the ground though. I don't buy "the natural order of things" argument. We have agency and we can decide what kind of world we live in. If the "center" is increasing inequality and a third of our society living in poverty, let's redefine the center. The road we are on now will inevitably lead to an economic and social collapse. I for one don't relish a return to the Dark Ages.

 

[Loachman]

If we have no registry, why?

There is still a registry, and I am required to maintain all but one of my firearms in it.

With a warrant and due cause?  WTF are you going on about?

Law-abiding firearms collectors are required to allow "inspectors" (not necessarily police) to "inspect" their firearms, storage facilities, and documents. The "inspectors" may take things found during this rape of one's dwelling. This is a search and seizure, despite the terminology used, and it is indeed warrantless. One is required to "assist" the "inspectors", including verbally. The Liberal, and now Conservative (as they have adopted almost all of it), legislation thereby denies the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to silence, and several other constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms from a select group of the citizenry for no valid reason.

If you are not breaking the Law, what would you have to fear?  LEO's don't have the rights to just walk in and search you without cause.

Many firearms owners fear our own government and its agents more than they fear criminals, regardless of having done nothing wrong. And this legislation is so confusing and convoluted that it is almost impossible to know if one has done any real wrong or not.

Under this legislation, yes, some form of LEO  can pretty well enter and search without cause. They merely have to provide notice.

Criminals are better protected, legally.

The legislation actually declares simple ownership of a firearm to be a crime. The licence is government permission to commit this crime.

The maintenance of this legislation, despite all promises to repeal and replace it, and above all other dissatisfactions and disappointments that I have with this government and party, is the main reason that I shall cast my ballot for a Libertarian in the next election.

I would sooner vote NDP than Conservative, just to clean this party out as recently happened in Alberta.

And I never expected to even consider doing so just a few years ago.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Sure, and I agree that they aren't perfect. But let's examine their policies that work and conduct our own cost-benefit analysis instead of rejecting any form of government intervention (not saying you are). Norway for example has managed it's oil wealth far better than Canada, and that required direct state intervention. Whereas we sell off the Canadian Wheat Board  (on the cusp of what many think will be a "food boom") Norway formed Statoil and the result has been well documented.

A form of wealth redistribution already exists in this country in the form of income tax. We also grant corporations massive subsidies and in return they ship jobs overseas. Are we getting the best bang for our buck? When societies become as inequitable as we are becoming they also become unstable and susceptible to radical elements on the left AND the right. If Roosevelt is famous for saving capitalism, let's look at how he did it. In my opinion, the bargain between labour and capital has been consistently shifting in favour of capital since World War 2. Capital has been chipping away at the welfare state since then, and it's clear that's largely the reason for many of our problems. The good old days (1950s for example) many conservatives seem to yearn for saw us taxing top earners at 80%, affordable university, well funded social programs, strong unions and also the greatest period of economic growth we've ever seen.

The 1950s boom was fuelled by money and industry from WW2 and by rebuilding Europe. Remember, the European powerhouses were broke and the US (and us) was essentially the economic big player owing to the state of industry at the end of the war. As the world caught up and labour became increasingly expensive North America gradually lost those industrial jobs to the growing countries and Europeans relied less on North America for production as their factories became operational again.

Also, one could argue that Norway has benefitted from oil money more because of it's smaller population- one could easily argue that Dubai should be the model to follow if we solely look at those factors.

 

[Kirkhill]

Let's look at the effects on the ground though. I don't buy "the natural order of things" argument. We have agency and we can decide what kind of world we live in. If the "center" is increasing inequality and a third of our society living in poverty, let's redefine the center. The road we are on now will inevitably lead to an economic and social collapse. I for one don't relish a return to the Dark Ages.

Indeed, individually we have agency.  Collectively? I don't see any evidence of a collective consciousness.

I might change my mind if she showed up on my front doorstep.