Archive for December, 2006

RCMP Commisioner steps down

December 7, 2006

Just watching (now the ex) RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli give his farewell speech on CTV. Lots of noble quotes and metaphors.

To my way of thinking (possibly unfairly) Zaccardelli’s tenure was defined by the media bump over his purchase of a pair of $1,100 riding boots. It seemed to me to indicate someone more concerned with pomp and circumstance than ‘in the field’ police work.

But for all of the media and public outrage over the Arar case, which precipitated Zaccardelli’s resignation, there were a lot of other incidents with the RCMP over past years that have tainted the reputation of the Force. These were detailed in an article in the Ottawa Sun this past October.

All of this cannot be placed soley on Zaccarelli’s desk as the RCMP has been involved in some questionable practices long before Zaccardelli’s tenure.

Certainly some of the problems with the RCMP can be attributed to the increasing politicization of the organization over the years as detailed here and here.

This can only be fixed if the PMO is willing to reduce its’ power. Fat chance.

Advertisements

The Gun Registry: Why the Liberals need it

December 4, 2006

To even the densest among us the reason and the need for the gun registry must be coming clear.

1. The Liberals have called for the ban and confiscation of all handguns.

2. The Liberals have called for the ban on all semi-auto firearms.

3. You can’t ban something and then confiscate it without knowing where that object is.

4. The gun registry gives the government of list of who owns those nasty guns they want to confiscate and exactly where they are located.

5. Without the registry there can be no efficient way to go and get those guns.

You don’t think that hasn’t been obvious all along to the anti-gun bureaucrats in Ottawa or to the likes of Wendy Cuckier and her Coalition for Gun Control group?

So were those that kept repeating the old phrase, “registration means confiscation” paranoid, as they were told? Obviously not. We just slid down the slippery slope a little faster than anticipated.

Exit From Iraq

December 4, 2006

With the democrats sitting in a position of power in Washington there is definitely a push to “bring the boys home” from Iraq. The simple mindedness of this policy is so naive as to be frightening.

I’m with Mark Steyn on this. Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times on the Iraq Study Group and the rumours that they will recommend pulling the troops out of Iraq, Steyn says:

Don’t get me wrong, I like a Friars’ Club Roast as much as the next guy and I’m sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn’t it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

”The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America’s credibility and will to prevail.”

As I write in my new book, Singaporean Cabinet ministers apparently understand that more clearly than U.S. senators, congressmen and former secretaries of state. Or, as one Baker Commission grandee told the New York Times, ”We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out.”

An ”exit strategy” on those terms is the path out not just from Iraq but from a lot of other places, too — including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China, the South Sandwich Islands. For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that’s all hype and no power — or, at any rate, no will. According to the New York Sun, ”An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference . . .”

Read the whole article. Steyn makes sense and he is funny as well.

To pull out of Iraq now simply confirms to the world that the US has no staying power. Kill a few soldiers and they will limp home with their tail between their legs.

There is no question that they have misjudged amd mishandled the situation in Iraq, but setting a timetable to pull out the US troops will only encourage more violent opposition. If they think that by bailing out they will make their country safer they only prove that they have no understanding of the mindset of the Islamic fundamentalists.

If we weren’t talking about politics and politicians I would hope that common sense would prevail. We’ll see what Wednesday brings when the report is released.

Federal Liberal Policy Resolutions

December 3, 2006

The Liberal leadership convention is over with surprising results, with Stephane Dion ensconced as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The voting on the policy resolutions did not surprise me when it came to their resolutions on firearms.

Resolution #42 (which I originally missed when I posted earlier) was passed. This was a resolution to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons are illegal for hunting purposes; and

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons do not support the hunting culture found in all parts of Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to support legislation to eliminate the personal use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

National Women’s Liberal Commission
Liberal Party of Nova Scotia

This passed even though it was inaccurate due either through ignorance or malicious intent, as semi-auto firearms are regularly used in hunting, sport shooting or predator control in the agricultural community. 

So the Federal Liberals now have it on record that they want to ban all semi-auto firearms. Not just handguns anymore, but semi-auto shotguns, rifles (even your .22s) in addition to handguns.

Resolution # 47 was passed in workshop and says:

WHEREAS the cancellation of the gun registry is part of the Conservative Party’s program;

WHEREAS the cancellation of the gun registry is part of the Conservative Party’s program; and

WHEREAS the Conservative government has started to slash into the registry by ending requirements to register long guns; and

WHEREAS police forces have continually supported the gun registry and spoken out against efforts by the Conservative government to weaken or end it; and

WHEREAS the continued support of police forces for a total gun registry is a strong indication of the capacity of the current system to reduce the harm caused by guns; and

WHEREAS certain dangerous weapons are not found on the current list of illegal weapons; and

WHEREAS it is necessary to continue to effectively control the possession and use of guns;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take the necessary steps:

1. to counter the efforts by the Conservative government to end or reduce the scope of the current gun registry that was enacted by parliament several years ago;

2. to review the classification of guns so that semi-automatic weapons be classified as an illegal weapons; and

3. to enact more severe laws to better control the possession and use of guns.

Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec)

They have made their point that Bill C-68 was only the first step along their path to make firearms ownership so restrictive as to effect a total ban somewhere down the road.

At least for law-abiding citizens.