From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #706 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, February 1 2003 Volume 05 : Number 706 In this issue: Re: New Brunswick - Savoy COLUMN: Other than that, it's a pretty good bill ARTICLE: Peel police hunt trio after fatal shooting Gun owners' addresses found in garbage Fw: Very Thought Provoking about the Canadian Safety Council Re: Canadian Labour Congress needs to take a second look... Edm Sun Editorial 2003 02 01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 08:02:06 -0600 (CST) From: Robert LaCasse Subject: Re: New Brunswick - Savoy New Brunswick - the home of the Miramichi/Newcastle registry is in a home uproar on the Firearms Act Fiasco....they finally got ethics figured out beyond the paychecks! No rights...no kidding, try Charter s.8, they just forget it in court, and play all sorts of weird approaches...the last time was in court for a 86(2) Storage. I was waiting for them to bring in the Kangaroo....but they figured out that I was a Congenial Law abiding person and not a Hells Angel Warlock/Torpedo/HitMan...took them 2.5 years for that! Your in Justice Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 08:02:40 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: COLUMN: Other than that, it's a pretty good bill http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id={41C896BD-6923-4753-949A-73963E2C43E7} Other than that, it's a pretty good bill Andrew Coyne National Post Friday, January 31, 2003 The Prime Minister's campaign finance reform bill, it is true, places strict limits on contributions from private sources. This would be cause for celebration, were it not also true that the bill makes such contributions all but unnecessary. If this bill goes through, political parties and Members of Parliament will be able to fund their campaigns almost wholly out of public funds. The incentive to go out and raise money from willing donors will be diminished accordingly, and with it one of the last points of contact between the political class and the taxpayers who put them there. It will be the most daring raid on the federal treasury since the June before last, when MPs helped themselves to a 20% pay raise, then skipped town for the summer. Only now they will be voting, not merely to enrich themselves at public expense, but to entrench themselves at public expense, indefinitely: a permanent salariat, an immovable feast. In time, the idea that political parties should once have been forced to appeal to members of the public to contribute to their campaigns voluntarily will come to be regarded as a relic from a less enlightened age, like leaving orphans in the care of private charity. So accustomed will MPs of all parties become to living off the avails of the taxpayer that it will seem to them unthinkable that campaigns could be funded in any other way. ("Do you have any idea what a good political consultant costs these days?") And having granted themselves chequing privileges on the public's account, they will hardly be in a position to deny the same to others, even if it occurred to them to try. Do I exaggerate? The government acknowledges that, under this legislation, political parties and candidates would be 90% on the public take, up from 60% today. But in fact the proportion is likely to be closer to 100%, and though the increased access to the public till is pitched as "compensation" for the loss of corporate and union donations, in most cases they will now be better off than they were before. Consider. The bill would double the amount that can be claimed against the full 75% tax credit for political contributions (versus the 16% credit for contributions to other, less deserving causes, such as curing cancer), from $200 to $400. Of the $400 a party receives, in other words, the contributor would only pay $100. The taxpayer would pay the remaining $300. But that's not all. It's election time. The party takes that $400, and spends it on its campaign -- the usual things, you know, push polls, attack ads, beer and pizza, whatever. Under the legislation, it would be reimbursed for fully 50% of that amount, up from 22.5% under current law. That's another $200 out of public funds. Of the original $400, in sum, the taxpayer would be on the hook for ... $500. Of course, on larger donations, the credit is proportionately smaller. The maximum allowable credit, $650, kicks in at donations of $1,275 or more. So for every $1,275 donation a party receives, the taxpayer contributes $650, plus another $637.50 to reimburse the party for going to the trouble of spending it. The way I see it, it's still making money on the deal. But that's nickel and dime stuff, the sort of petty conniving we expect of the parties. The bill's real innovation, the point where the larceny gets grand, is its proposal that the parties should be given an "allowance." It's right there in the bill: an allowance, to be paid out in quarterly installments, the amount determined by how well they did in the last election. Here's how it would work. First, the parties would spend your money buying your vote. Then they'd cash in those votes in return for still more of your money. The rate of exchange: $1.50 per vote, per year. The Liberals, just to choose a party at random, on the strength of the 5 million-plus votes they obtained in the 2000 election, would be guaranteed nearly $8-million a year in public funding, without having to lift a finger. That's about as much as they now raise from corporate donors. Indeed, it's very nearly as much as they raise from all sources, once you subtract the cost of fundraising. It's really quite breathtaking. First, they pass a law against so-called "third-party" advertising, forbidding you to spend your own money in support of a cause you believe in. Now they propose to force you to spend your money in support of a cause you may not believe in at all -- namely, themselves. And the worst part of it is: It's a pretty good bill, otherwise. If the bill passes in its current form, we get stuck with paying for sleazy, depressing political campaigns, probably forever. If it doesn't pass, we miss what will in all likelihood be the last chance in my lifetime to get the corporate and union money out of federal politics. Damn. Damn. © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 08:56:28 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: ARTICLE: Peel police hunt trio after fatal shooting http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030201/UNATSMSB-2/Headlines/headdex/headdexNational_temp/21/21/29/ Peel police hunt trio after fatal shooting Saturday, February 1, 2003 – Page A6 Brampton, Ont. -- Peel Regional police are looking for three suspects after a man was shot and killed in Brampton last night. Police say the victim, who was in his 20s, was shot in the chest just after 9 p.m. at an apartment complex in the Queen Street West and Main Street South area. He was pronounced dead shortly after paramedics arrived at the scene. Police say the victim was the intended target of the shooting and they are looking for three suspects -- two men and a woman, all of them thought to be in their 20s. CP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:48:53 -0600 (CST) From: "dhammoa175" Subject: Gun owners' addresses found in garbage Gun owners' addresses found in garbage Alliance MP worries about thieves getting information Tim Naumetz The Ottawa Citizen Saturday, February 01, 2003 Alliance MP Darrel Stinson blasted the Canadian Firearms Centre yesterday after the federal privacy watchdog disclosed that envelopes bearing the names and addresses of gun owners were found in a garbage bin. Privacy commissioner George Radwanski reported earlier this week that his office was tipped in late 2001 that Firearms Centre waste bags were found frozen to the bottom of the garbage bin. Radwanski did not disclose the location. The bags contained return envelopes the centre had mailed to gun owners to send back to its processing site at Miramachi, N.B., with firearms registration applications. Although many of the envelopes carried the names and return addresses of the gun owners, a private company processing the applications, BDP Business Data Services Ltd., discarded the used envelopes with regular office trash. Firearms Centre spokesman David Austin said yesterday more than 1.5 million of the envelopes had been sent out to gun owners across Canada, but noted BDP switched to paper shredders to dispose of waste immediately after Radwanski informed the firearms centre about the container discovery. Stinson said that if thieves had found the envelopes, they would have known the location of dozens of homes containing firearms. He accused BDP of breaching the privacy rights of Canadians and demanded action from the government. Solicitor General Wayne Easter noted Radwanski reported the matter and "when the privacy commissioner raises some concerns, we constantly try to accommodate those concerns and work with him." Easter also brushed off criticism from Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz over the MP's discovery that only one million of the six million firearms in the registry have been verified to match the details sent in on registration applications by gun owners. Breitkreuz obtained the information from the RCMP, which is responsible for maintaining the registry. "There comes a time to move on, and maybe it would be better for society if that member, instead of undermining the system constantly, tried to work with us to improve it," said Easter. ? Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen D The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - -- H.L. Mencken ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:17:21 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Hill Subject: Fw: Very Thought Provoking This was sent to me by a friend who was a "Bobby" in London prior to coming to Canada and joining the RCMP. He is retired now and one of his friends sent this to him. Jim Hill Fletchers Lake, NS > Jim Piper Subject: BRITISH EDITORIAL No matter what your views on President > Bush's statement of upcoming war, this, from an English journalist, is very > interesting. For those of you not familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror, this > is a notoriously left-wing daily that is normally not supportive of the > Colonials across the Atlantic. > > > > Tony Parsons Daily Mirror September 11, 2002 ONE year ago, the world > witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the mass murder of thousands, live > on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, > September 11 was up there, with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or > the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An > unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely > the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there > could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly > evil. > > But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's > comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. > There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too > loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - > but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than > that, it turns my stomach. > > America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are > bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a > century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well > as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands > of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of > countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so > quick to betray them? > > What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the > planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's > son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn. > And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for > their meticulously planned slaughter? > > These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or > Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The > anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the > Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from > power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes > without having to ask permission. > > The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September > 11. > > Remember, remember. > Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, > "I love you," before they were burned alive. > Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning > skyscrapers. > Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. > Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the > planes with her mum. > Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for > 9/11 in anything like the way it could have. > > So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? > Pass the Kleenex... > So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their > semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next > time they should stick to confetti. > > AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. > That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being > raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in > the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents > of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass > murder of 9/11 was an abomination? > > When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving > Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that and > didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most > powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not > provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war. > The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," > if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell > like you wouldn't believe. > > The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of > the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and > the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not > bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. > How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? > You can count them on the fingers of one hand assuming you haven't had any > chopped off for minor shoplifting. > > I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. > But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above > all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, > free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or > some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we > should start remembering that. > > Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved > ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. > Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked > planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the > hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire > Department. > > To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. > Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and > set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save > me the orange center, oh mighty one! > > Remember, remember, September 11. > One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against > America. No, do more than that. NEVER FORGET! > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:02:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Paul Chicoine" Subject: about the Canadian Safety Council Was doing some channel surfing last night and came across CBC Disclosure who were doing a piece about the Canadian Safety Council and its fearless leader Emile "register this" Therien. I cannot say they trashed the Council. Emile did this himself by basically admitting the endorsement of the Safety Council is basically something that is for sale to the highest contributor to the registered charity that the Council really is. Lovely stuff. How about a email campaign to Disclosure to have a look at the CGC and its leader, Wendy "dodgy credentials" Cukier. Lovely. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice _________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:04:49 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Canadian Labour Congress needs to take a second look... "Chris Gilmore" > Canadian Labour Congress press release praises the Privacy Commissioner's > Report, maybe the eyes are beginning to open > to reality. I agree, and it boggles my mind that the CLC supports this - no doubt having adapted an "everybody knows" attitude about firearms and firearms legislation (which would be exactly identical to the "everybody knows" attitude the CLC fights so hard that union workers are lazy, overpaid, and abuse their employers). My best guess is that this was presented to the CLC as a "women's issue", and that magic phrase led to its' instant adoptation. I just returned early this morning from the Canadian Labour Congress Winter School (where I hung out with the Steelworkers rep Chris, brassy lady by the name of Thereasa Martin from 2952). Given the philosophies of the CLC dealing the individual rights, collective rights, unfair social policy, where tax dollars should be directed, etc and so forth... it is a little mind boggling that they support the Firearms Act. I am hoping that support can be changed - or at least eroded. We use the network of affiliate unions to fight other issues, and I think the same can be done with the Firearms Act. I doubt you could find an IWA, USWA, PPWC, etc union member in this area that supports the Firearms Act. It follows from this that when our membership is aware of support for the Firearms Act being offered by both the CLC and NDP, when either comes to us asking for the support of our Locals and Sub Locals, their hypocrisy regarding "rights" is remembered and they get the cold shoulder. The most recent example of this was our last provincial election. The IWA bigwigs endorsed the NDP; the membership remembered their treachery. Contrary to popular belief, union bosses don't control the union vote and the NDP was turfed out en masse, usually by a landslide in each riding. We are suffering for that now, of course, but that is another discussion for another day. The point is, union members remember who screwed who, and firearms owners who are also union members probably remember that as well when it is brought to their attention. I think it is time to start using some of that union solidarity/action stuff that the labour movement is always talking about. For those of us who are union members, I think we should start mobilizing our sub locals, locals, provincial executives, and national executives in opposition to this Act. I think we should start pressuring our locals, provincial, and national executives to get some spine and publically condemn the Firearms Act - not private agreement that it is a bad thing. Public. And I think we have to get our unions to work on the CLC as well. 30% of Canadian workers are unionized. That is one hell of a lot of votes... I don't have a lot of time to devote to this as I am involved in other things. But I do intend to send a "position paper" for lack of a better word to both the IWA and the CLC. I am going to focus in particular on why this legislation flies in the face of what unions and the CLC so strongly believe in ie: The racist origins of firearms legislation ie Sullivan Laws How the FA violates basic civil rights Privacy issues Abuses that relate to unionized workers (is the Qualicum guy a union member?) The money wasted and the underfunding of services like health care The fraudulent "science" this is based on. If anyone has anything else they think should be included, links to web resources, hard facts they think are relative, etc, by all means email them to me. I have lost most of my data on the prejudicial history of gun control (disarming blacks, unionized coal miners, immigrant shopkeepers in NY, returning soldiers in WWI, etc), so I could use some help with that. If you are going to submit some info, links, or whatever to me, however, don't take long to do it - I really don't have time to do this in the first place so I am going to punch it out fairly quickly and get it submitted. But those of you who are trade unionists out there should start getting more vocal with your locals and start the process of getting your locals, provincial, and nationals to condemn the Firearms Act. The civil rights issues along with the money wasted while health care goes begging should be reason enough for unions to condemn this legislation. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:19:55 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: Edm Sun Editorial 2003 02 01 They shoot horses In the eyes of law enforcement agencies - and ultimately the Klein government that is supposed to be in charge - what's the difference between Mary, and Nifty and King? When Mary - a sow grizzly who had become a highly popular resident of the Jasper-Hinton area - was slaughtered by despicable poachers last fall, the authorities leapt to action. Alberta conservation officers launched a probe, the public was asked to phone in tips and area resource companies put up a $13,000 reward. The culprits - who sustainable resource development officials believe may be responsible for illegally shooting other rare grizzly bears - haven't been caught yet. But it appears there was no lack of trying. And we commend the Alberta government's dedicated protectors of our wildlife resources for their prompt action in the case of the bears. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the recent shooting of Nifty and King, two horses in the Gibbons and Redwater areas. The horses' owners, who have described their dead animals as "part of our family," were clearly distraught that anyone would perform such a random act of violence on their pets. Shooting indiscriminately from a vehicle at animals grazing in a pasture is a very serious offence. And because similar incidents have occurred in the Bonnyville area, the threat to public safety has obviously escalated. But when they reported the incidents to the authorities, the horse owners say nothing happened. Only after repeated calls did a member of the organization that functions as Alberta's provincial police force actually contact them, days after the slaughter occurred. Of course, Alberta doesn't have a provincial police force - that job has been contracted out to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Albertans have a long, sentimental attachment to the Mounties. Sadly, the force of today bears little resemblance to the Queen's Cowboys of old. They have become a politicized, bureaucracy-driven outfit more in tune with the ideological philosophy of their Ottawa Liberal masters than the law enforcement needs of their Alberta paymasters. Harassment policing - like their religious enforcement of seat belt laws - sometimes seems to take precedence over the type of law enforcement that Albertans want, like catching folks who shoot horses. It doesn't have to be that way if Alberta's political leaders would exercise the necessary authority. But neither Justice Minister Dave Hancock nor Solicitor General Heather Forsyth have shown any inclination to provide the kind of law enforcement system that Albertans deserve. If only Nifty and King had been bears. Send a letter to the editor. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #706 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.