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 #707 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 Sunday, February 2 2003 Volume 05 : Number 707 In this issue: Re: about the Canadian Safety Council Albertans want a provincial police force Re: Fw: Very Thought Provoking Re: Doing Away With Juries Re: YOUR PAPERS PLEASE RE: AC notifying RCMP Canadian Labour Congress needs to take a second look... COLUMN: The land of the not-so-free email to Disclosure Question? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:40:33 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: about the Canadian Safety Council Paul Chicoine wrote: > > 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 > _________________________________________________ There is a link to this story at the CBC site: http://cbc.ca/disclosure/ Click on the "Elmer the Safety Elephant" story. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:41:20 -0600 (CST) From: Ron Watson Subject: Albertans want a provincial police force > 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. The "pepper sprayers" 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. Its high time Ralph did something about this. Albertans want their own provincial police force not controled by the Cretin string pullers. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:42:38 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Fw: Very Thought Provoking Jim Hill wrote: > 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. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. The current kinder, gentler version of "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" that the US appears to be moving towards is unacceptable to many people. I am by no means un-American - I married one, have worked in the States, and may move there again by choice in the near future. And nobody, in any country, deserved the kind of civilian death toll of innocent people that the US suffered on 9/11. That would include the civilians of Iraq who have suffered and died under US led and Canada approved irrational sanctions while Saddam and the rest of his oligarchy continued to live in the style they are accustomed to. That will include all the Iraqi "soldiers" who will be slaughtered - men conscripted into the military, dragged off the street untrained, handed a weapon of some sort and a uniform, and trucked off to wherever the fight will supposedly be. I am sure there will be homecoming victory parades afterwards, but as a former soldier I don't see much victory or glory in the methodical slaughter of an "enemy" who in reality is almost incapable of inflicting harm on your forces during the "fight". I don't believe in giving an enemy an opportunity to have a "fair fight" with you - but neither do I believe in unnecessary killing to achieve a goal. There is a great deal of anti-Americanism in the world today - much of it undeserved. However, it is also true that a lot of it has a root cause in American actions which, had they instead have been perpetrated on the US would have lead to instant war. The US has a long history of being very selective about who gets democracy and "justice for all". The writer of the piece in question has conveniently overlooked this - in fact, he blames the victims of past American plotting. At one point in the article Jim Hill forwarded he says: > 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? Well, we know that there is at least one less democracy in the Middle East and the Muslim world than there was before the US started plotting. Iran. Yes, that country so seemingly full of irrational hatred for the United States was once a parliamentary democracy - just like Canada. But back in the 1950's there was this small problem having to do with oil, you see, and the Prime Minister of Iraq had decided that Western nations weren't going to be allowed to continue pillaging Iraq's oil resources at the expense of Iraq. Well, it simply wouldn't do to have a bunch of ignorant carpet jockies and their Parliament interfering with US interests - sort of an international version of "If it's good for US Steel, it's good for America" point of view. And so the US sent the CIA in. And the CIA got in touch with a few folks, did a little organizing... voila! The lucky people of Iran had their parliament and prime minister removed for them (the PM - Time's Man Of The Year - was hung for good measure). In their democracy's place they got a fella known as the Shah of Iran and his secret police, the Savak, as their rulers. All courtesy of the United States, of course. And then there were no more problems with oil and Iran for about the next 25 years or so. So while it is critically important to Americans that Americans have the right to vote, a representative form of democracy based on those votes, etc - the US certainly didn't see the need for Iranians to have that same right and representation. For the Middle East and those Iranian Moslems, it was perfectly acceptable to put a bloody dictator in place along with his secret police who were quite willing to use torture and murder to keep him securely in power. Given that, I am constantly amazed at the many Americans and others who truly don't understand why Iranians don't like the United States. If somebody tried to take away Americans' right to vote and installed a dictator and his police to rule over them with a bloody fist, just what the hell does everyone think the American reaction to that would be? Would they have kind, gentle thoughts towards the country that attempted to engineer this? Would they have completely forgiven all just a few decades later? I don't think so. So why are we puzzled when Iranians and others in the Middle East who have suffered at the hands of the US taking away their civil rights to guarantee American prosperty resent the US? Maybe the US should be recognizing their old record in the Middle East and be building bridges instead of bombing them? And of course before then, there were the banana wars - which is where the term "banana republic" came from. So while much of the anti-American sentiment out there is undeserved and fails to recognize that the US is also one of the most generous countries in the world, there is no doubt that the US has caused a lot of completely unjustified death and suffering in the world. Usually while in pursuit of making a buck. Until the US comes to grips with their past history and realizes the rest of the world doesn't exist to service the US through some version or other of Manifest Destiny, their problems in the rest of the world are never going to end. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:18:23 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Doing Away With Juries "Todd Birch" said: > It made me wonder if I would be willing to be tried by 12 of my peers on > a serious matter, particularly a firearms related matter in this day and > age. Criminologists have debated some form of doing away with juries for some time now. And there is no doubt that lawyers often fear juries - either because of concerns that the jury of "peers" often aren't your peers and are a collection of prejudices and emotional reactions. How many people can truthfully say they could sit on a jury at the trial of someone charged with raping and killing a child - and keep their emotions and prejudices from becoming involved? I couldn't. I have watched juries sleep, inspect their nails, daydream, look at witnesses/Crown/Defense/accused with antipathy, etc. I have also watched them looking on in utter confusion while complex points of law beyond the comprehension of anyone not trained in law were argued. Judges are nowhere near perfect either, of course. But I think where emotional and/or complex issues are part of a trial, both the Crown and the accused have a better chance of getting an unemotional and impartial decision. There is also the issue that anything involving lawyers or run by lawyers has to be bad. Lawyers are inevitable. At some point in human history when disagreements were settled by something other than a club, somebody sooner or later recognized that Og was better at expressing his point of view in settling a dispute, and therefore he was at a disadvantage. And so he got Trog to argue his issues on his behalf. Trog was pretty good at it, and so everybody wanted Trog to represent them. Trog won most of his arguments, and pretty soon people realized that they didn't stand a chance without having somebody like Trog to represent them. Then people discovered that Ook was pretty darned good as well, and the first two lawyers were created. Nobody wanted to go back to the original system, because they recognized that more often than not, one person is almost always better at public speaking, reasoning, appealing a case, etc. Which is good if you're the better guy, but not so good if you're not - or not as attractive, handicapped in some other manner, etc. In short, the idea that if lawyers were eliminated we would have a level playing field - or more level playing field - is quite simply incorrect. The "evil" that lawyers do is really not much different than blaming firearms for crimes involving firearms. Lawyers represent their clients within the framework of legislation we provide for them to work within. It is fashionable to criticize lawyers because they built much of that framework - but it was the common herd who voted them into office or those in office who employed and directed them in constructing this framework. Ultimately, whatever fault (or credit) lies there lies with the voting public wh almost universally pay little attention to their government and seldom if ever actually get involved in the process. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:19:01 -0600 (CST) From: Vulcun1isback@aol.com Subject: Re: YOUR PAPERS PLEASE In a message dated 2/1/2003 7:40:27 AM Central Standard Time, owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca writes: > How does Air Canada know who Dr. Hudson is, or any > > interest that the RCMP might > > have in him? Has Air Canada become a branch office > > of the RCMP now? What other > > infringements of our rights are going on every day > > of which we are blissfully > > unaware? > > > > I think that both Air Canada and the RCMP have quite > > a bit of explaining to do. > No doubt that Eds name must have blacklisted by the RCMP and this info entered in Air Canada computers as a person to be on the "watch" for (But "Real" Terrorists have no problem getting into the country though !! ) Perhaps they have undercover photo's of Ed posted across Canada (after all,Eds now an enemy of the state right - Welcome to kunuckistan where Freedom is of speech and association appears to be now illegal under the current Socialist Regime in Ottawa !! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:20:09 -0600 (CST) From: tommyg@bmts.com Subject: RE: AC notifying RCMP While, this is possible, it is probably the Ottawa Police Department official version. Most likely the Ottawa police got their info from the OPP electronic surveilance department. If I reall Jim sent a request to someone on the digest about the possibility of doing some target shooting while in Ottawa. The OPP 'Monitors' this digest and more likely 'Monitors ' all eletetronic type communications. Most likely there was a wire tap on the phone of the person that Jim was officially visiting, along with a redirection of the email communication. About a year ago I chronicled a true event where one of my postings here resluted in another member of my club being called by the OPP. My posting was about the previous Range Operator taping converstions with all government officials (and people he does not like)In the taped conversation a sargent let slip that the OPP monitors all eletronic means of communication. Well, he made an official complaint to the OPP commision and in it he addressed the fact that the sargent was trying to bully and intimidate him, and the monitoring of all telecommunications in the province. The complaint was investigated and found unsubstantiated( go figure the police investigating the police). But there was no response to his complaint that the OPP monitors all electronic telecommunications. We guess that they want that part to go unnoticed. Who did Jim have contact with in Ottawa, and how were the communications dealt with. Are there any unique identifiers that only Jim and his contact in Ottawa would knoe that the Ottawa Police know? Moral of the story: Do not use this digest for personal communications. Email may be suspect for a few of us as well. Especially if your views are considered 'radical'. I know that this is a great vehicle to spread the gospel as we see it. but we cannot provide them with evidence ahead of time, this just give them time to think about an alternate solution. tommyg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:20:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Canadian Labour Congress needs to take a second look... I have brought up the Firearms Act many times at union meetings and on the CUPW national internet bulletin board, as well as at our national convention last year. It really is an uphill battle. I get a lot of flack from the left wing types, who sincerely believe the government about how it will prevent crime and suicides. These are the same people who will be calling the government a pack of liars 10 seconds later on another issue. It's kind of frustrating at times, but I'm certainly not preaching to the converted, and I get enough positive feedback to keep going. Alan Harper alan__harper@cogeco.ca SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:39:20 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: COLUMN: The land of the not-so-free http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/robinson.html February 1, 2003 The land of the not-so-free An election gag law, enforced contributions to political parties, surveillance cameras, a passenger database ... if Canadians don't wake up, their civil liberties may be toast By WALTER ROBINSON -- Ottawa Sun January 2003 may very well go down in Canadian history as the beginning of the end of our democracy as we know it. Have I got your attention now? This isn't some reactionary rant, yours truly is deadly serious ... Canadians better wake up from their collectivist, groupthink, our government-is-benevolent coddled slumber before it's too late and state-sanctioned thinking takes hold. Political finance reforms, the move to re-institute election gag laws and a chilling report from the privacy commissioner -- which makes George Orwell's books look more and more prophetic -- all point to one inescapable conclusion: Our constitutional freedoms of expression, democratic participation and privacy are under attack at every turn courtesy of the federal government. While supporters of this week's political finance reform package -- ending big-ticket corporate and union donations -- portray it as step toward transparency, it should be called what it really is: A mugging in broad daylight of Canadian taxpayers. And isn't it ironic that those most in favour of the government's political finance-reform packages are backers of big, expansionist government? But I digress. The fact is taxpayers already subsidize political parties and candidates through tax credits and election expense rebates. This week's plan unveiled by Mr. Chretien makes this abhorrent situation even worse. Indeed, taxpayer fattening of the bank accounts of the five major parties and others including the Communists, yogic flyers and maybe even the Marijuana party will jump from the current level of 59% to almost 90% with the passage of new legislation. Under the Chretien "fleece the little guy" scheme, political parties will net $35 million in non-election years and up to $80 million in an election year based on the number of votes cast for each party in the most recent election. Talk about entrenching power and a significant funding advantage for the party in power (which just happens to be the Liberals), yikes. One national newspaper hit the nail on the head by labelling this the Incumbency Protection Act. If Chretien and crew were (are) really serious about ending the so-called big-money influence in politics, they should have ended tax credits for political contributions and campaign expense rebates, period. But instead, the government proposes to double the maximum contribution amount eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. Meanwhile, a similar donation to the local United Way or cancer centre merits a paltry 16% tax credit. And the government has the nerve to call this fair and transparent? There's a lesson here for Ottawa city council (and thankfully saner heads seem to have prevailed with the recent decision to reconsider their goofy plan to provide campaign contribution rebates -- courtesy of local property taxpayers -- for donations). In this sense, all politicians would do well to heed the words of American founding father Thomas Jefferson when he stated back in 1770 that: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Sinful indeed ... so much for political freedom. And speaking of elections, it's bad enough that the feds want us to pay for 90% of their political campaigns, but at the same time, they're looking to deny your right to say anything during these same election campaigns. As WWE wrestler Kurt Angle would say, "oh it's true, it's true." Earlier this month government House Leader and Glengarry-Prescott-Russell MP Don Boudria confirmed that the feds will indeed press ahead and appeal a federal court ruling which deemed that the election gag law effectively banning advertising by so-called third parties (read: Citizen groups, unions, chambers of commerce, the local 4-H club, etc.) was unconstitutional. Even though the courts have consistently struck down Ottawa's gag laws on four separate occasions in the last two decades, our federal government will once again squander untold millions to try and trample on our constitutional freedom of expression. At the root of this law is the assumption that voters are stupid (a very wrong assumption to be sure) and easily swayed by advertising which begs the question: Why is political party advertising okay but not advertising from anyone else? So much for liberty. Finally, the recent report from privacy commissioner George Radwanski has sounded more bells than a five-alarm fire. His 74-page annual report is more chilling than George Orwell's Nineteen Eight-Four. From the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) eternal passenger database to a national ID card to the RCMP's intrusive and expanding video surveillance efforts in communities from coast to coast, our privacy is rapidly disappearing. As the 18th-century conservative philosopher Edmund Burke so pointedly warned us: "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." Wake up Canada, it's time to fight back! We are quickly moving from citizen-controlled government to becoming a nation of government-controlled citizens. Unless we act, peace, order and good government will soon be nothing but a line in the history books. Robinson is federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; these views do not necessarily reflect those of the CTF. his e-mail address is wjr@cyberus.ca Letters to the editor should be sent to oped@sunpub.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:02:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Paul Chicoine" Subject: email to Disclosure *have you written to Disclosure today?* Hello Disclosure. "Elmer" was such a lovely story. Lovely in the sense Mark Kelly didn't have to resort to ambush journalism to nail Emil "register this" Therien. Therien did that all by himself with a plain admission that the Canadian Safety Council stamp of approval is basically for sale to the highest contributor. There is no shortage of hack organizations in our fair land. Following the Auditor General's report on December 3, 2002 it became abundantly clear the pilfered purse of the Canadian tax payer had received an extra vigorous working over in the form of the Canadian firearm control laws, the registry in particular. To this end I attach an article (translated) which ran in La Presse in Montreal. The point of this email is simple, more than a billion dollars is a lot of money. Right along side the various Ministers of Justice was the Coalition for Gun Control and its mistress, Wendy Cukier. Wendy and friends seem to have done well for themselves but Wendy is a particular case. How does an instructor of secretarial science morph into a professor of justice studies or an expert in IT, depending on what review I read. What's the deal behind this front when the list of contributor's seems to mirror that list briefly used as a backgrounder in the Elmer story. This is my request, please dig into the background of Canada's pro gun control movement and see what you can uncover and maybe help to save some tax dollars. Not to be considered totally biased in this matter I invite you to also look into Canada's anti - C-68 type gun control organizations. Your doing a fine job, keep it up Regards __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice _________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 00:22:45 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Hill Subject: Question? Read number 6 on this page. Could something be done regarding the blatant lie that the NRA is in any way involved int the fight here in Canada, not to mention the fact that Cukiers little group is the gun lobby group and not the owners of firearms that makeup the RFC? Cukier is fortunate that there is no pro gun lobby group here in Canada for if there was she never would have achieved her dream of foisting her anti gun wishes on the rest of us. I think someday there may be a lobby; there are glimmers with the RFC Ottawa movement, but I hope it is not too little too late. There are too many organizations out there trying to get their own little deals, thinking the government will let them alone. They will only save you till last then no one will be able or willing to come to your aid. I ran on again with two different topics as I am wont to do on occassion so back to the original question on the NRA involvement. Jim Hill Fletchers Lake, NS http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/donation.pdf ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #707 ********************************** 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.