NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. campaign putting pressure on Canadian MPs over same-sex vote



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTTAWA - Some members of Parliament say they're getting pressure from their constituents, and from Americans, over the same-sex issue.

"They're phoning, they're sending e-mails and they're faxing," said Liberal MP Beth Phinney.

"It doesn't concern me, because I'm just going to listen, certainly just listen, to people in Canada and hopefully just listen to people in my riding," she said. "I tell them it won't make a difference in my vote."

Liberal MP Maria Minna has found some of her U.S. correspondence harder to ignore. "One letter said that if I voted for it, I would burn in hell."

Most of the U.S. pressure against same-sex marriage is a lot subtler.

There's a postcard campaign, courtesy of an $80,000 contribution from the U.S. chapter of the Knights of Columbus and the international organization Focus on the Family, which launched a series of ads promoting family values in the last Canadian election.

"The United States, including the American government, I think is quite concerned at the drift that this country has taken in what I view as the wrong direction, and what millions of Canadians view as the wrong direction," said Liberal MP Pat O'Brien.

"The Americans seem to feel everybody should look at life the way they do. More guns, no same-sex marriage, all that sort of thing," says Alex Munter. He says his group, Canadians for Equal Marriage, just can't compete with a campaign funded by American dollars.

"There's an attempt from the American religious right to hijack our debate, to dominate our debate ... we have a Charter of Rights here and discrimination is unCanadian."

Munter's message is getting out at Famous Players theatres, where an ad encourages voters to write their MPs in support of same-sex marriage.

The Canada Family Action Coalition is calling for a boycott of the theatre chain after getting complaints.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler mused recently that he would try to curtail American input in the debate, but there is no law against an American citizen participating in a Canadian debate and Cotler has no plans to introduce one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/09/samesex050209.html


Keep your feelthy hands off of our parliamentary process, you right-wing weendbags!

And americans wonder why people think they are arrogant. :rolleyes:

I hope this doesn't affect the vote, I was planning on moving there eventually.

The fun thing is most of the yanks bitching at the canadians about same sex marriage are probably the same sods who wanted canadians to shut the fuck up and stop telling them not to vote for Bush.
God damn it what business is it of theirs who does//does not get married in a country that they dont bloody live in!

The fun thing is most of the yanks bitching at the canadians about same sex marriage are probably the same sods who wanted canadians to shut the fuck up and stop telling them not to vote for Bush.
God damn it what business is it of theirs who does//does not get married in a country that they dont bloody live in!

"Do as I say, not as I do."

I think that sums up their position on the matter of foreign opinion.

What really gets my goat is that the yanks have been sending money up here to influence the vote. Can you imagine the outcry if Canadian organisations were found to be influencing the democratic process of the states?

You're right, worth trying just to highlight the irony, really.

heh, she's called Munter.

Thats my intelligent offer to this debate.

Wait... Canadian representatives actually read their mail? When did this start? It's likely they got odd letters from us simply because no one reads them if you send them to Washington, so you can write pretty much any gibberish and it won't matter. ;)

Wait... Canadian representatives actually read their mail? When did this start? It's likely they got odd letters from us simply because no one reads them if you send them to Washington, so you can write pretty much any gibberish and it won't matter. ;)

Maybe that's where dubya gets the material for his speeches. :D

And can the US please stop feeding stupid ideas into it's puppet John Howard in Australia? The abortion debate has been restarted by white Christian MALE members of the government, it is causing concern among the women of Australia even the female members of the government.

We've banned same-sex marriage already and Australia is become little America if this goes on too long.

We've banned same-sex marriage already and Australia is become little America if this goes on too long.

"If?" The whole eastern half of Australia is like they cloned southern California.. might as well finish the job and clone our politics. :p

"If?" The whole eastern half of Australia is like they cloned southern California.. might as well finish the job and clone our politics. :p

I live in the North which is less like America and more relaxed although this PC business is getting to us too. Ironically where I live there is going to be more US bases than Eastern Australia!

We're Australian, our beer is much better than the US stuff! :p

Not only are American Groups engaging in direct attempts to influence Canadian policy via such letter-writing campaigns, they are also funding groups in Canada to lobby this issue for them (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c94fb9c1-f691-49cf-aced-c21a8369481f&rfp=dta)


And yes, if it were happening in reverse - Canadians sending cash to fund lobby groups to attempt to influence US domestic issues - there would be a hell of stink about it in the US.

I posted this one late last night. It needs to see the light of day.

Bump.

Why are they listening to dipshit Americans? If I was on a foreign Parliament and got letters telling me how to vote from Americans I would burn the letters, take pictures, and mail those back.

Man, I'm really happy about the fact that Germany is not a neighbouring state to the USA.^^

Why are they listening to dipshit Americans? If I was on a foreign Parliament and got letters telling me how to vote from Americans I would burn the letters, take pictures, and mail those back.
I would just make a case to the Supreme Court to make it illegal for the Yanks to shoot off their mouths in Canadian politics, since they obviously don't want it to work both ways.

If i was Canadian, and I was aginst Same-Sex marrage (i'm not) hereing this would make me vote for same sex marrage just to piss the righty's off.

If i was Canadian, and I was aginst Same-Sex marrage (i'm not) hereing this would make me vote for same sex marrage just to piss the righty's off.
That's the spirit!

That's the spirit!
*Slaps thigh* Yep. *groans* that hurt.

What's perhaps more ominous is that there are suspicions that the federal Conservative party, which has come out against same-sex marriage, may be receiving funding from American interest groups. No, I don't have a link for you on that one. Yet.

If Mr. Harper & his social-conservatives are indeed receiving refreshment from foreign political entities, I'm fairly sure that this is not at all a legal form of funding. Anyone having links to more info, please post it here...

I posted this one late last night. It needs to see the light of day.

Bump.

LOL. I posted on this same topic yesterday morning! But you're getting much more response than I did.

LOL. I posted on this same topic yesterday morning! But you're getting much more response than I did.

I never seem to be first past the gate on these things...

Well, you're getting a lot of different responses than I did. Most of yours are, well, aghast, that this is occuring, whereas I had a few trying to defend their actions or turn this into revenge against The Guardian...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396241&highlight=annoyed

What the hell does a Brit newspaper have to do with Americans trying to foist their bizarre pseudo-Christian agenda on Canadians??

I wish I'd been aware of your thread at the time, I'd've weighed in heavily - except I'm apparently now one step away from being forum-banned, so had I done so, there'd be one less centre-left voice on this Republican rat's-nest of a forum.

If i was Canadian, and I was aginst Same-Sex marrage (i'm not) hereing this would make me vote for same sex marrage just to piss the righty's off.It's highly irritating that those organisations (especially Focus on the Family) are trying to stick their noses where they don't belong. They are nothing but a bunch of hatemongering hypocrites who bastardise the Bible for their own twisted purposes.

they did the same thing with decriminalzing marijuana here too. they threatened to tighten the border even though some of their own states have more lax laws on decriminalized pot than what the canadian government was proposing.

i also find it hilarious that the conservatives here were all like "let's sue michael moore, he's an american and was trying to sway the canadian vote" and yet they're probably applauding this letter writing campaign.

meanwhile i think that if anyone is going to listen to michael moore, chances are they weren't going to vote for the conservatives anyways.

It's highly irritating that those organisations (especially Focus on the Family) are trying to stick their noses where they don't belong. They are nothing but a bunch of hatemongering hypocrites who bastardise the Bible for their own twisted purposes.

Could you please explain to me how these "hatemongering hypocrites" are bastardising the Bible?

they did the same thing with decriminalzing marijuana here too. they threatened to tighten the border even though some of their own states have more lax laws on decriminalized pot than what the canadian government was proposing.

i also find it hilarious that the conservatives here were all like "let's sue michael moore, he's an american and was trying to sway the canadian vote" and yet they're probably applauding this letter writing campaign.

meanwhile i think that if anyone is going to listen to michael moore, chances are they weren't going to vote for the conservatives anyways.

Yeah that rat-bastard Paul Cellucci acts like he's supposed to have some say in our affairs, instead of minding his Ps and Qs like every other 'ambassador' to Canada...remember he told the Canadian media at a recent press conference that Canada WILL be a part of that monumental haemorrage of cash, the Missile Defence Initiative, regardless of what our elected officials have to say about it?

It's highly irritating that those organisations (especially Focus on the Family) are trying to stick their noses where they don't belong. They are nothing but a bunch of hatemongering hypocrites who bastardise the Bible for their own twisted purposes.
I know.

Those kinds of people really irritate me!

Could you please explain to me how these "hatemongering hypocrites" are bastardising the Bible?

Could you explain how they aren't?

We're Australian, our beer is much better than the US stuff! :p
To be fair, Fosters vs. Budweiser is a pretty unsatisfying competition.

What the hell does a Brit newspaper have to do with Americans trying to foist their bizarre pseudo-Christian agenda on Canadians??


Well, that's my fault. I brought it up in my original post, saying that while it was understandable to resent The Guardian reader's urgings to not vote Bush, it was hypocritical to bash those letter writers for trying to influence the American vote and then later try to influence the vote of the Canadian MPs.

Could you explain how they aren't?


I asked first.

Well, that's my fault. I brought it up in my original post, saying that while it was understandable to resent The Guardian reader's urgings to not vote Bush, it was hypocritical to bash those letter writers for trying to influence the American vote and then later try to influence the vote of the Canadian MPs.

In other words, the Guardian has nothing whatsoever to do with this impingement on our Parliamentary process.

Okay then.

Are you reading this, Americans?

People from YOUR country are trying to derail social evolution in MY country.

Fuck off.

i also find it hilarious that the conservatives here were all like "let's sue michael moore, he's an american and was trying to sway the canadian vote" and yet they're probably applauding this letter writing campaign.



What amuses me is that Michael Moore made his statements primarily to boost F 9-11, which was released 2 days before the Canadian election. It was mostly just a publicity stunt. Ralph Nader wrote an open letter to Canadians and had it published in several major newspapers, urging Canadians not to vote Conservative. Nader showed definite intent to influence the Canadian election by doing so. And yet -- nobody wanted to sue Nader. Just Moore.

Could you please explain to me how these "hatemongering hypocrites" are bastardising the Bible?
I read a Christian book yesterday called "What's So Amazing About Grace" by Philip Yancey. It said that real Christians should be tolerant and accept the outcasts of society.

It had stories about a Southern white Christian (forget his name) in the 60s who joined the civil rights movement. He often came up against white Christian fundamentalists who opposed civil rights for blacks. I think that they anti-gay Christians of today are like those in the 60s.

http://www.philipyanceybooks.com/

In other words, the Guardian has nothing whatsoever to do with this impingement on our Parliamentary process.

Okay then.

Are you reading this, Americans?

People from YOUR country are trying to derail social evolution in MY country.

Fuck off.

Woah, Dobbsie. I know how you feel, but chances are very good that nobody on this forum is writing those letters or making those phone calls. If you're that close to being forum banned, maybe you want to tone down a bit. I don't want to see you get booted. :(

What the hell does a Brit newspaper have to do with Americans trying to foist their bizarre pseudo-Christian agenda on Canadians??

I wish I'd been aware of your thread at the time, I'd've weighed in heavily - except I'm apparently now one step away from being forum-banned, so had I done so, there'd be one less centre-left voice on this Republican rat's-nest of a forum.

I'll explain it.

The Guardian UK thought that they would call people in Ohio at home, and tell them who to vote for (Kerry). They did this out of a sense that people in the UK know what's good for the world, and people living in Ohio are just stupid retards who can barely muster the brain power to keep breathing.

So...

It's perfectly relevant.

If Left-meaning people have the right to call from their country to the United States to tell people how to vote,

then..

Right-meaning people have the right to call from their country to Canada to tell people how to vote.

Or are you saying that the people in the UK who made those calls ALSO have their collective heads up a single ass?

I'll explain it.

The Guardian UK thought that they would call people in Ohio at home, and tell them who to vote for (Kerry). They did this out of a sense that people in the UK know what's good for the world, and people living in Ohio are just stupid retards who can barely muster the brain power to keep breathing.

So...

It's perfectly relevant.

If Left-meaning people have the right to call from their country to the United States to tell people how to vote,

then..

Right-meaning people have the right to call from their country to Canada to tell people how to vote.

Or are you saying that the people in the UK who made those calls ALSO have their collective heads up a single ass?
except the office of the presidency affects the rest of the world, the legality of homosexual marriage in canada doesnt.

I'll explain it.

The Guardian UK thought that they would call people in Ohio at home, and tell them who to vote for (Kerry). They did this out of a sense that people in the UK know what's good for the world, and people living in Ohio are just stupid retards who can barely muster the brain power to keep breathing.

So...

It's perfectly relevant.

If Left-meaning people have the right to call from their country to the United States to tell people how to vote,

then..

Right-meaning people have the right to call from their country to Canada to tell people how to vote.

Or are you saying that the people in the UK who made those calls ALSO have their collective heads up a single ass?

But it WAS NOT CANADIANS who wrote those letters! If you have a beef with people trying to influence your elections it's with them, not with us. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Tit for tat to a Canadian for something the Europeans did is like blaming America for something Africa did. Unfair and inappropriate.

Well, maybe I'm tired of having to play nice only to have Bush apologists slam me. Maybe I'm tired of always having to watch what I say or do, only to see rabid right-wingers nearly always get their way. Maybe I'm tired of mods who don't operate even-handedly.

Maybe I'm just getting tired of NS.

I don't know.

But what I do know is that there IS an all-pervasive "evil" out there - though in the past I have opined that "evil" is illusory. The evil that is America exists because it's people, and it's duly-elected government, DO believe in "evil" - and aren't afraid of it.

But it WAS NOT CANADIANS who wrote those letters! If you have a beef with people trying to influence your elections it's with them, not with us. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Tit for tat to a Canadian for something the Europeans did is like blaming America for something Africa did. Unfair and inappropriate.

It is not tit-for-tat.

It is precedence. The UK, by calling Americans and telling them to vote for Kerry, have established a precedence.

I can now call anyone in any other country, and offer them my misinformed opinion on how they should vote or think.

It's not two wrongs make a right.

If you think this is wrong, please contact the people who started all of this, those people at the Guardian, and tell them "Thank you very much for convincing the Americans that it is OK to call people in other countries and offer asinine opinions."

I'll explain it.

The Guardian UK thought that they would call people in Ohio at home, and tell them who to vote for (Kerry). They did this out of a sense that people in the UK know what's good for the world, and people living in Ohio are just stupid retards who can barely muster the brain power to keep breathing.

So...

It's perfectly relevant.

If Left-meaning people have the right to call from their country to the United States to tell people how to vote,

then..

Right-meaning people have the right to call from their country to Canada to tell people how to vote.

Or are you saying that the people in the UK who made those calls ALSO have their collective heads up a single ass?

This doesn't have anything to do with your appalling sham electoral process, or with do-gooders in the UK. This is about CANADA, about CANADIAN law, about marriage in CANADA, and CANADIAN social evolution.

Got it? Need I say more??

Hands OFF, America. Go invade some oil-rich nation to amuse yourselves, okay?

It is not tit-for-tat.

It is precedence. The UK, by calling Americans and telling them to vote for Kerry, have established a precedence.

I can now call anyone in any other country, and offer them my misinformed opinion on how they should vote or think.

It's not two wrongs make a right.

If you think this is wrong, please contact the people who started all of this, those people at the Guardian, and tell them "Thank you very much for convincing the Americans that it is OK to call people in other countries and offer asinine opinions."

I'm very, very angry with you, Legs. I suppose that makes you happy.

Leave us to make our own internal policies. This is the crowning achievement of a helluva lot of effort to make this a better place for ALL to live, and I can't believe that a bunch of redneck Yankee hayseeds are trying to ruin it for us.

If you feel hard-done by the Guardian, deal with it. Don't try to tell me that there is now a 'precedent' for being dickwads to a country who had fuck-all to do with your goddamn election.

It is not tit-for-tat.
It is precedence. The UK, by calling Americans and telling them to vote for Kerry, have established a precedence.

Not the UK, just 1 newspaper and a small percentage of it's readers.

It is not tit-for-tat.

It is precedence. The UK, by calling Americans and telling them to vote for Kerry, have established a precedence.


Having a similar thing happened in the past still does not make the action right. Thieves and criminals set the precedence of crime on a daily basis - but we don't accept or tolerate their actions merely because other people have committed crimes in the past. And we certainly don't imitate them.

...And yet it was okay when Jack Layton was trying to pressure border states into passing laws further infringing on the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of Americans to keep and bear arms?

Hypocrites.

Comparing the Guardians Ohio letters to the Canada debate isnt quite fair; The U.S has NOTHING whatsoever to do with same sex marriage in a DIFFERENT country, they are simply trying to force their ideals on another culture. However, the U.S election IS a concern for Brits, because at this rate Bush will be dragging us into World War 3, and due to our puppet of a Prime Minister, we'll be dragged into the middle of it. In other words, whilst Gay Canadians getting married has no affect on Americans, Many people in Britain and other parts of the world feared Bush's re-election. And rightly so.

...And yet it was okay when Jack Layton was trying to pressure border states into passing laws further infringing on the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of Americans to keep and bear arms?

Hypocrites.

...just how much political pull does the leader of the fourth-largest party in Canadian politics have with American border states?

Zilch.

Comparing the Guardians Ohio letters to the Canada debate isnt quite fair; The U.S has NOTHING whatsoever to do with same sex marriage in a DIFFERENT country, they are simply trying to force their ideals on another culture.

Careful Canada, the US will probably invade to liberate you from the oppressive regime that allows sins such as same sex marriage and other things that they don't agree with.... :rolleyes:

...And yet it was okay when Jack Layton was trying to pressure border states into passing laws further infringing on the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of Americans to keep and bear arms?

Hypocrites.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/03/484693-cp.html

The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States, and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.

"What we are focusing on is the increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S.," Layton told reporters. "We're proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened."

First of all, he was proposing to do so. He has not yet actually done so.

Second of all, his proposal established a link with illegal US guns being smuggled across the border into Canada, making this a foreign policy issue, where two nations try to work together to solve a problem that effects both of them.

In my mind, this is entirely different than a letter writing, phone calling campaign to influence the vote of Canadian MPs on a matter that only effects Canadians.

I know.

Those kinds of people really irritate me!

wow, you're really pissed off that someone sticks up for Scripture. The Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Focus on the Family, believing in the Bible, is representing the biblical viewpoint. Don't hate them... hate the Bible.

Careful Canada, the US will probably invade to liberate you from the oppressive regime that allows sins such as same sex marriage and other things that they don't agree with.... :rolleyes:

No doubt. Or they'll just try bankrolling the (social) Conservatives up the wazoo when this current minority government inevitably collapses in a vote of non-confidence.

Like they're doing now.

Comparing the Guardians Ohio letters to the Canada debate isnt quite fair; The U.S has NOTHING whatsoever to do with same sex marriage in a DIFFERENT country, they are simply trying to force their ideals on another culture. However, the U.S election IS a concern for Brits, because at this rate Bush will be dragging us into World War 3, and due to our puppet of a Prime Minister, we'll be dragged into the middle of it. In other words, whilst Gay Canadians getting married has no affect on Americans, Many people in Britain and other parts of the world feared Bush's re-election. And rightly so.

Thank you P-17, for your post. My commiserations on the follies of your nation's leadership.

It truly does seem like they won't be happy till everywhere is a mini US. The UK is already on it's way :(

The Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Not true. In many places, the Bible also supports polygamy, the practice of a husband having multiple wives. Thus, not simply one man and one woman. How many wives and concubines did good old King David have again? And it's not like he was the only one.

Picking and choosing which parts of scripture a group actually supports weakens their arguement if they are only basing it on scripture.

wow, you're really pissed off that someone sticks up for Scripture. The Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Focus on the Family, believing in the Bible, is representing the biblical viewpoint. Don't hate them... hate the Bible.

'Representing the biblical viewpoint' and actively trying to interfere with the internal Law-making process of a foreign, sovereign nation are two entirely different things.

I won't hate the Bible. It's a book. I'll choose instead to hate those who would deny me, and my fellow Canadians OUR rights to satisfy THEIR viewpoint.

As for US groups putting monetary pressure on Canadian officials ... that's not cool, imo.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/03/484693-cp.html

The roots of Canada's gun problems are in the United States, and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.

"What we are focusing on is the increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S.," Layton told reporters. "We're proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened."

First of all, he was proposing to do so. He has not yet actually done so.

Second of all, his proposal established a link with illegal US guns being smuggled across the border into Canada, making this a foreign policy issue, where two nations try to work together to solve a problem that effects both of them.

In my mind, this is entirely different than a letter writing, phone calling campaign to influence the vote of Canadian MPs on a matter that only effects Canadians.

You know, we have a similar effect here between Virginia and Maryland.

In Maryland, they now even restrict the type and model of handgun that can be purchased, and how many you can buy per month. Of course, you can never get a concealed weapon permit, and open carry is forbidden.

In Virginia, open carry is legal. Concealed carry permits are available to anyone who can legally purchase a gun and take a short class (so no felons, wife beaters, or mental patients).

Of course, the effect predicted by the pro-gun camp immediately took place.

Violent crime (which is only a small percentage done with guns) went down in Virginia by 33 percent in a single year.
It increased by the same amount in Maryland (in the adjacent counties).

Since only 7 percent of violent crime is committed with a firearm, it would appear that guns are not the cause of this surge in crime.

I end up seeing a lot of felons (I do pro bono work). The ones I see in Northern Virginia say that they don't want to "work" in Northern Virginia any more, as it has become too dangerous. They prefer to work in Maryland, where they know their victims will be unarmed.

You know, we have a similar effect here between Virginia and Maryland.

In Maryland, they now even restrict the type and model of handgun that can be purchased, and how many you can buy per month. Of course, you can never get a concealed weapon permit, and open carry is forbidden.

In Virginia, open carry is legal. Concealed carry permits are available to anyone who can legally purchase a gun and take a short class (so no felons, wife beaters, or mental patients).

Of course, the effect predicted by the pro-gun camp immediately took place.

Violent crime (which is only a small percentage done with guns) went down in Virginia by 33 percent in a single year.
It increased by the same amount in Maryland (in the adjacent counties).

Since only 7 percent of violent crime is committed with a firearm, it would appear that guns are not the cause of this surge in crime.

I end up seeing a lot of felons (I do pro bono work). The ones I see in Northern Virginia say that they don't want to "work" in Northern Virginia any more, as it has become too dangerous. They prefer to work in Maryland, where they know their victims will be unarmed.

Forgive me, I'm not sure what you intend by your post. Yes, Canada has problems with illegal US guns being smuggled into Canada, but our violent crime rate continues to drop, and we still have less gun crime per capita than the US (as a whole, there may be US jurisdictions with less gun crime per capita than Canada as a whole, which may include Maryland, I don't know).

Or was your post just an acknowledgement that sometimes states and/or countries have to work together to sort things out?

I don't know what Legs is going on about, either. What's this have to do with American groups interfering with Canadian politics?

except the office of the presidency affects the rest of the world, the legality of homosexual marriage in canada doesnt.

Seconded. Your presidents actually affacts the rest of the world with his foreign policies: Joe and Andy marrying in Canada doesn't affect the outside world at all. Unless they go spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars in your country while on vacation. Which is usually something desirable, or so I've heard.

Legs is veering off topic, but I'll join him anyway


I've had conversations with several Americans who all seem very keen on their relaxed gun laws. Now, are all you guys like this, or do have any of you realised that by increasing the amount of people who carry guns by relaxing gun laws, you increase the amount of people who get shot? Guns should be outlawed among civilians, its a fact that they are more likly to contribute to a fatl accidnet than "protect" you.

I completely agree that guns should be illegal for civilians, however i don't think its a possibility at this point in the U.S. Considering how many legal firearms are already in the country, and how many gun nuts there are, there's no way the guns would get off the streets or out of the houses even if a gun ban were enforced. The cost of implementing a ban would be too high, and in this case ( to differ from most democratic situations ) assuming the U.S. were to democratically vote for a gun ban, the minority who voted against it would be able to pressure the majority with firearms since the majority wouldn't have any of their own. Enter the police / military and probably the mother of all ugly situations.

Sometimes, situations just suck.

Legs is veering off topic, but I'll join him anyway

I've had conversations with several Americans who all seem very keen on their relaxed gun laws. Now, are all you guys like this, or do have any of you realised that by increasing the amount of people who carry guns by relaxing gun laws, you increase the amount of people who get shot? Guns should be outlawed among civilians, its a fact that they are more likly to contribute to a fatl accidnet than "protect" you.

While it works that way in some places, it doesn't work that way in Virginia.
93 percent of violent crime is not committed with a firearm in America.
If you have a gun, and you are confronted with a violent crime, and you resist, the majority of the time you will win (i.e., the crime will be deterred) and no shots will be fired.

There are both anti-gun, government (over several years), and pro-gun studies that all show a positive, anti-violent crime effect of gun carrying civilians in America.

Violent crime increases (even non-gun violent crime) in areas of the US that pass more and more restrictive gun laws. It is not the presence of illegal guns in those areas that raises violent crime - it is the knowledge that felons have that their potential victims will be easy prey.

And now, back to the topic...

If this "buttcrack" law is so bad, then why do Italian police have the right to decide who is ugly, and force them to leave a public beach? Does the effect on tourism of ugly fat people in bathing suits on a beach override the personal freedom of anyone to go to the beach?

Are Americans the only country that passes laws this stupid?

*shifting his holster*
*checking to see that the buttcrack is covered*

*whoa*

I've been sending my answers to the wrong thread... :rolleyes:

AHA! Now this begins to make sense! :D You had us a little confused, Legs.

What's perhaps more ominous is that there are suspicions that the federal Conservative party, which has come out against same-sex marriage, may be receiving funding from American interest groups. No, I don't have a link for you on that one. Yet.

If Mr. Harper & his social-conservatives are indeed receiving refreshment from foreign political entities, I'm fairly sure that this is not at all a legal form of funding. Anyone having links to more info, please post it here...

That would be illegal so I am guessing NO. You have to remember that some peops in the liberal are AGAINST the same sex vote and some, (only a few its true) of conversatives are FOR the same sex vote.

Dobbs just vote commie NDP and dont worry about it...

That would be illegal so I am guessing NO. You have to remember that some peops in the liberal are AGAINST the same sex vote and some, (only a few its true) of conversatives are FOR the same sex vote.

Dobbs just vote commie NDP and dont worry about it...

Jay, seeing as I've just publicly deided to split NS, it gives me no end of satisfaction to tell you to your face what a simpering little bitch you are.

Fuck you and your parochial outlook.

Over and out.

P-17 and Jokath:

I'm Canadian, but I see no reason to make guns illegal for all civillians. Farmers and hunters (for example) have a legitimate need for firearms. Target shooting is a sport - an Olympic sport, even - and is also considered a legitimate civillian activity.

We don't need to and shouldn't ban all guns. But there are firearms that don't have acceptable civillian uses, such as automatics and semi-automatics, plus military hardware like grenade launchers and mortars and whatnot.

A properly run gun registry of handguns, rifles, and shotguns (similar to car licensing, for example, as opposed to the tragicly expensive and ineffective mess currently on the books) is not inherently a bad idea. But banning all guns? You guys are clearly urbanites. I agree that your average city dweller doesn't need a gun. But do try to remember that not everyone lives in a city, and some that do have legitimate interest in gun sports.

Jay, seeing as I've just publicly deided to split NS, it gives me no end of satisfaction to tell you to your face what a simpering little bitch you are.

Fuck you and your parochial outlook.

Over and out.

Why would you split NS? You're much more logical than some of the other people here.

I'm tired of it - all of it. See my poll/thread, 'I'm Off' for details...

We're Australian, our beer is much better than the US stuff! :p

You must keep the good stuff for yourselves and send us that Fosters swill.

What's perhaps more ominous is that there are suspicions that the federal Conservative party, which has come out against same-sex marriage, may be receiving funding from American interest groups. No, I don't have a link for you on that one. Yet.

If Mr. Harper & his social-conservatives are indeed receiving refreshment from foreign political entities, I'm fairly sure that this is not at all a legal form of funding. Anyone having links to more info, please post it here...


That would be illegal so I am guessing NO. You have to remember that some peops in the liberal are AGAINST the same sex vote and some, (only a few its true) of conversatives are FOR the same sex vote.

Dobbs just vote commie NDP and dont worry about it...

The Conservative Party doesn't need to actually receive funds to benefit from other Canadian social conservative groups getting funding from elsewhere. I don't think it's illegal for Focus on the Family (for example) to spend money collected in the states on a campaign in Canada. However, I think it's safe to say that there are non-political party groups on the other side of the issue, like the GLBT Alliance who are also collecting money in the US for use on campaigns in Canada. So other political parties are also getting indirect support from non-Canadian sources too.

Annnywaaayyyy...

Jayastan, the NDP are left of center, but they're not communist. [smacks Jayastan's wrist slightly] If that were so, Canada wouldn't have the following three 'faintest hope' parties:

The Socialist Party of Canada
The Communist Party of Canada
The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada

(Was anyone else watching the federal election returns when the Marxist-Leninist Party was actually leading the early early returns in one riding in Ontario (I think it was Ontario). That was so funny! The commentators had no idea what to say, and they had trouble dredging up a symbol for them.)

The Democratic Party in the US has received donations from foreign companies such as Norinco (which is actually a state-run arms manufacturer in China).

The Republican Party has also received donations from foreign companies.

Hard to tell if a foreign donor is representing some other government.

George Soros - hmm... He certainly wants to influence US elections as a foreigner.

If George Soros was giving tens of millions of dollars to one party in Canada (let's say it wasn't your choice of party), would you be upset?

Jay, seeing as I've just publicly deided to split NS, it gives me no end of satisfaction to tell you to your face what a simpering little bitch you are.

Fuck you and your parochial outlook.

Over and out.

Ahh are you saying I have a narrow religious outlook? I do actually support gay marriage. I dont believe the government should be interfering with what two consenting adults believe in. Thats what true conservatives believe in.

In any event, you seem to tend to lose many arguements, not unlike a true NDPer, in any event, believe me dude, I could kick your ASS. ;)

The Democratic Party in the US has received donations from foreign companies such as Norinco (which is actually a state-run arms manufacturer in China).

The Republican Party has also received donations from foreign companies.

Hard to tell if a foreign donor is representing some other government.

George Soros - hmm... He certainly wants to influence US elections as a foreigner.

If George Soros was giving tens of millions of dollars to one party in Canada (let's say it wasn't your choice of party), would you be upset?


i think it is overblown imo. Of course religious groups in the states are going to support the anti gay marrage vote in canada, gay marriage in canada is a important first step for gay rights.

I'd say that political parties should not be receiving foreign money. Period. Doesn't matter what party they are.

In Canada we have rules about the size of donations parties may receive from individuals and corporations. There are even rules about how much money companies owned by a parent company can give out (so you can't make a quickie numbered corp. to shell out money in addition to funds you've already given).

These new funding rules, however, do mean that the parties are now eligible for a certain amount of tax payer funds, depending on the percentage of the vote they received in previous elections, since the amount they can collect from donors has been essentiallly capped - unless they can pull a Dean and get a lot of small donation from a lot of people.

This legislation has its pros and cons, but the intent is to prevent the wealthy from 'vote-buying' and having undue influence on our politicians.

The Conservative Party doesn't need to actually receive funds to benefit from other Canadian social conservative groups getting funding from elsewhere. I don't think it's illegal for Focus on the Family (for example) to spend money collected in the states on a campaign in Canada. However, I think it's safe to say that there are non-political party groups on the other side of the issue, like the GLBT Alliance who are also collecting money in the US for use on campaigns in Canada. So other political parties are also getting indirect support from non-Canadian sources too.

Annnywaaayyyy...

Jayastan, the NDP are left of center, but they're not communist. [smacks Jayastan's wrist slightly] If that were so, Canada wouldn't have the following three 'faintest hope' parties:

The Socialist Party of Canada
The Communist Party of Canada
The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada

(Was anyone else watching the federal election returns when the Marxist-Leninist Party was actually leading the early early returns in one riding in Ontario (I think it was Ontario). That was so funny! The commentators had no idea what to say, and they had trouble dredging up a symbol for them.)


O h i know the NDPers are not true commies but its sorta fun teasing NDPers.

The Democratic Party in the US has received donations from foreign companies such as Norinco (which is actually a state-run arms manufacturer in China).

The Republican Party has also received donations from foreign companies.

Hard to tell if a foreign donor is representing some other government.

George Soros - hmm... He certainly wants to influence US elections as a foreigner.

If George Soros was giving tens of millions of dollars to one party in Canada (let's say it wasn't your choice of party), would you be upset?

I would be annoyed with that even if it WERE my party of choice. Our parties have no business owing any favours to overseas entities simply as a function of finding funding for their day to day business.

O h i know the NDPers are not true commies but its sorta fun teasing NDPers.

Fair enough. Just like it's sometimes funny to tease Conservatives. :D

I voted NDP in the last election, but I happened to like the former mayor of Victoria who was running in our riding (especially over David Anderson!). I'm allergic to voting Conservative because so many are social conservatives, although if Keith Martin was still Conservative AND had been running in my riding, I might have put my X next to his name.

Equuus

You're correct, i am an urbanite. I live in Stockholm, Sweden. In my country, guns are not banned however the system is from what i've learned somewhat like what you described. People can get a firearms license for hunting weapons, but to do so they have to take a written test (or two depending on what type of license they want) and a practical test of firearms safety and shooting for the type of weapon they're applying for (shotguns, rifles type 1 or rifles type 2/3/4) i'm not sure what the rifle classifications are, but i think they have to do with what kind of bullets the rifles use.

This system generally works well, because there are as you said no semiautomatic weapons available to the civilian population as far as i know. I think i exaggerated when i wrote my earlier post, i think this system works well i just don't think people should be able to carry a gun around on their person as "protection", if a person is to have a firearm they should have need for it for specific reasons and be well-versed in how to use it.

Other than that, i looked up some statistics (annoying things)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

If i'm reading that correctly, it says that 27% of violent crimes in the U.S. were commited with firearms, not 7% as previously indicated in this thread. Just for the record.

Seconded. Your presidents actually affacts the rest of the world with his foreign policies: Joe and Andy marrying in Canada doesn't affect the outside world at all. Unless they go spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars in your country while on vacation. Which is usually something desirable, or so I've heard.


Legal same sex marriages in Canada will effect the US. How many hundreds of Americans will hop across the border for a quick wedding, then return to the US and use the courts to beat the government into submission?

Equuus

You're correct, i am an urbanite. I live in Stockholm, Sweden. In my country, guns are not banned however the system is from what i've learned somewhat like what you described. People can get a firearms license for hunting weapons, but to do so they have to take a written test (or two depending on what type of license they want) and a practical test of firearms safety and shooting for the type of weapon they're applying for (shotguns, rifles type 1 or rifles type 2/3/4) i'm not sure what the rifle classifications are, but i think they have to do with what kind of bullets the rifles use.

This system generally works well, because there are as you said no semiautomatic weapons available to the civilian population as far as i know. I think i exaggerated when i wrote my earlier post, i think this system works well i just don't think people should be able to carry a gun around on their person as "protection", if a person is to have a firearm they should have need for it for specific reasons and be well-versed in how to use it.

Other than that, i looked up some statistics (annoying things)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

If i'm reading that correctly, it says that 27% of violent crimes in the U.S. were commited with firearms, not 7% as previously indicated in this thread. Just for the record.


the gun problem in the states is less about how many guns are around and more about the culture of the states. In canada we have almost as many guns per capita as the states yet much less gun play. In canada if you get in a fight you use fists, in the states you may get blown away...

Legal same sex marriages in Canada will effect the US. How many hundreds of Americans will hop across the border for a quick wedding, then return to the US and use the courts to beat the government into submission?


That true, however BOO HOO, get over it...

"the gun problem in the states is less about how many guns are around and more about the culture of the states. In canada we have almost as many guns per capita as the states yet much less gun play. In canada if you get in a fight you use fists, in the states you may get blown away..."

Yeah, why is that anyway? I've always wondered.

If i'm reading that correctly, it says that 27% of violent crimes in the U.S. were commited with firearms, not 7% as previously indicated in this thread. Just for the record.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

From the page:

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault."

It is certainly proving to be true here in Virginia and Maryland. And the sudden shift in crime from one affluent suburb to another equally affluent and adjacent suburb can only be explained by:

a. Criminals know that people in Northern Virginia are likely to be armed while they are not
b. Criminals know that certified unarmed people are only 10 minutes away in Maryland
c. The felons themselves say that this is a strong influence in their decision as to where to commit their crimes.
d. The disparity has been maintained for several years now.


Still, we know that police cannot be everywhere. Would you like to hope that a felon here would let you summon the police and wait to rape you before the police arrive, or would you rather that I pull out my pistol and stop the whole thing?

I could, legally, just walk away and let you be raped. Quite unlike a policeman.

Legal same sex marriages in Canada will effect the US. How many hundreds of Americans will hop across the border for a quick wedding, then return to the US and use the courts to beat the government into submission?

But American homosexuals are already getting married in Canada, since six provinces and one territory in Canada have already legalized gay marriage. This is just federal legislation that would cover all of Canada. I'm not sure, but I think not allowing it on the federal level would not change the laws in the provinces that have legalized it. (any lawyers out there who might know for sure?)

And, for that matters, Americans were fighting this issue in court before any provinces legalized gay marriage. Our actions are not causing this issue to go to court, it's already in court.

"the gun problem in the states is less about how many guns are around and more about the culture of the states. In canada we have almost as many guns per capita as the states yet much less gun play. In canada if you get in a fight you use fists, in the states you may get blown away..."

Yeah, why is that anyway? I've always wondered.

I have no idea, heres a example, I go to visit a cousin of mine in long beach LA. We go down to a 7-11 and my cousin buys a glock for 200 bucks off some 14 year old kid standing on the corner.

I ask him what the fuck dude? He says this guy was pissing him off and if he comes by again, he will shoot the fuck. I end up cracking him in the face when he wasnt looking and throwing the gun into this canal.

Legal same sex marriages in Canada will effect the US. How many hundreds of Americans will hop across the border for a quick wedding, then return to the US and use the courts to beat the government into submission?


You are saying that the US government has some sort of legal requirement to recognize extraterritorial weddings of their citizens?

I think that you are way far off on this one. Hell, in the US a state is not even required to recognize a marriage performed in the US but out of state!

Wow. that is screwed up. I know a guy who walked around with a glock tucked in his jacket here, which he got illegaly. I have no idea why he did it, cause if he'd been caught man he would have been put away for quite some time.

I have no idea, heres a example, I go to visit a cousin of mine in long beach LA. We go down to a 7-11 and my cousin buys a glock for 200 bucks off some 14 year old kid standing on the corner.

I ask him what the fuck dude? He says this guy was pissing him off and if he comes by again, he will shoot the fuck. I end up cracking him in the face when he wasnt looking and throwing the gun into this canal.

LOL I nearly peed myself laughing.

You are saying that the US government has some sort of legal requirement to recognize extraterritorial weddings of their citizens?

I think that you are way far off on this one. Hell, in the US a state is not even required to recognize a marriage performed in the US but out of state!

But he does have a point. For example, a couple of lesbians married in Canada moved to Ireland, and then went to court for the right to have their marriage recognized. I have no idea whether they were successful.

However, as I said before, gay marriage was an issue in the States before Canada started legalizing it. Our actions aren't forcing the US govenment or their court system to do anything. If the US courts decide to recognize gay marriages performed outside of the US, it will be their decision to do so, probably based on human rights. It's certainly not a matter of 'Canada married them, set a legal precedent, now we must follow suit' by any stretch of the imagination.

"Still, we know that police cannot be everywhere. Would you like to hope that a felon here would let you summon the police and wait to rape you before the police arrive, or would you rather that I pull out my pistol and stop the whole thing?"

Over here, up north, if people see a felon doing something like that they attempt to beat the crap out of them with their bare hands. Viking blood and all that, go figure ;)

You are saying that the US government has some sort of legal requirement to recognize extraterritorial weddings of their citizens?

I think that you are way far off on this one. Hell, in the US a state is not even required to recognize a marriage performed in the US but out of state!


No, I'm not saying that there is a legel requirement. I am saying that there will be more lawsuits. Therefore the argument that the law will have no effect outside of Canada is false.

PS. What people do in their own homes is nobody elses bussiness. However, legal same sex marriages will negativley effect me financially without any real social benifit that I can see.

But he does have a point. For example, a couple of lesbians married in Canada moved to Ireland, and then went to court for the right to have their marriage recognized. I have no idea whether they were successful.
It's ongoing, but I hope they will be successful. Despite the high level of Catholicism in this country, there are not many religious nuts complaining about it.

Also, the statistics said that 67% of murders were commited with firearms. I think that's kind of significant, cause generally if you shoot someone the chance of them dying is fairly big.

"the gun problem in the states is less about how many guns are around and more about the culture of the states. In canada we have almost as many guns per capita as the states yet much less gun play. In canada if you get in a fight you use fists, in the states you may get blown away..."

Yeah, why is that anyway? I've always wondered.

More than half of all gun murders are black on black violence related to drugs.

If the War on Drugs were stopped, and drugs were legalized, most of the gangs would dry up, and most of the black on black gun violence would stop.

Democrats are not interested in this solution (neither are Republicans - don't bother asking them). Democrats want more gun laws (generally), and Republicans want fewer.

In truth, it's not a gun problem. It's a class problem, where due to one resource worth fighting over (drugs), one class has been set upon itself.

Since no one cares what happens to that class...

We already have gun violence levels lower than Brazil and Luxembourg (as a national rate).

If we ended the war on drugs, and the gang wars stopped, our gun violence rate (which has been steadily dropping) would drop to levels comparable to most EU nations.

First of all, he was proposing to do so. He has not yet actually done so.

Point taken and my apologies.

Second of all, his proposal established a link with illegal US guns being smuggled across the border into Canada, making this a foreign policy issue, where two nations try to work together to solve a problem that effects both of them.

Indeed, but the solution is NOT to throw the U.S. Constitution out the window.

In my mind, this is entirely different than a letter writing, phone calling campaign to influence the vote of Canadian MPs on a matter that only effects Canadians.
So far.

Forgive me, I'm not sure what you intend by your post. Yes, Canada has problems with illegal US guns being smuggled into Canada, but our violent crime rate continues to drop,

As does the American rate.

and we still have less gun crime per capita than the US (as a whole, there may be US jurisdictions with less gun crime per capita than Canada as a whole, which may include Maryland, I don't know).

Yes, but more CRIME, period, due in no small part to the fact than Canadians are severely restricted in their ability to defend themselves from criminals, and that the U.S. has much greater problems with illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Point taken and my apologies.

Indeed, but the solution is NOT to throw the U.S. Constitution out the window.

So far.

But gun control is not the same as banning guns. Every US state (as Whispering Legs pointed out) have different laws concerning gun control, and as far as I can tell, none of those gun control laws throw the US Constitution out the window.

realised that by increasing the amount of people who carry guns by relaxing gun laws, you increase the amount of people who get shot?

No, you increase the number of CRIMINALS who are shot, and reduce the number of INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS who are.

Guns should be outlawed among civilians, its a fact that they are more likly to contribute to a fatl accidnet than "protect" you.
Not unless there are 2.5 million fatal firearms accidents, annually, in the United States. :rolleyes:

But gun control is not the same as banning guns. Every US state (as Whispering Legs pointed out) have different laws concerning gun control, and as far as I can tell, none of those gun control laws throw the US Constitution out the window.
Any infringment upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is directly contrary to the protections of both the United States Consitution, and those of nearly every state.

Also, the statistics said that 67% of murders were commited with firearms. I think that's kind of significant, cause generally if you shoot someone the chance of them dying is fairly big.

The problem is that various studies show a positive effect on crime prevention in the US without firing a shot.

Anti-gun studies show that there are 60,000 incidents per year where a gun is used by a civilian to stop a crime without firing a shot.
Pro-gun studies have that number at 2.5 million per year.
Department of Justice studies were at 2.4 million per year.

In any case, they are positive results, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.

I've seen the truth of it twice.

Just because you use a gun to stop a crime doesn't mean that the gun is fired.

And, currently, in Virginia, just the simple fear of guns is making felons take that 10 minute trip up the road to Maryland - where they know they can rape and rob without being shot.

The simple fear. Ah, I see. The people in Virginia don't even have to fire a shot to get a 33 percent reduction in violent crime.

As does the American rate.

Yes, but more CRIME, period, due in no small part to the fact than Canadians are severely restricted in their ability to defend themselves from criminals, and that the U.S. has much greater problems with illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

There is not more crime per capita in Canada than the US. What are you talking about? I don't understand what you are trying to stay, so I am afraid I'll misunderstand your point.

Please see this graph: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap&id=OECD

It is a comparison of total (reported) crime (not just gun crimes or violent crimes) per capita in the OECD countries.

Edit: It could be argued (and should be) that some of the countries lower on the list have more crime that isn't reported. But I think the US and Canada would be pretty much the same when it comes to tendency to report crimes, since our police forces don't tend to be criminals or corrupt, and our citizens are not afraid to report crimes, unlike what may be the situation in countries like Slovakia, Mexico, and Turkey.

Ofcourse one state making their gun control laws tougher won't make a difference. That much is obvious, its like if one of the countries in the middle-east were to suddenly decide to disarm, what do you think would happen?

If gun control is to work, it has to be a federal issue not a state one, because one state banning guns will only, as you say and prove, make felons from other states rape and kill the citizens of another state.

P-17 and Jokath:

I'm Canadian, but I see no reason to make guns illegal for all civillians. Farmers and hunters (for example) have a legitimate need for firearms. Target shooting is a sport - an Olympic sport, even - and is also considered a legitimate civillian activity.

We don't need to and shouldn't ban all guns. But there are firearms that don't have acceptable civillian uses, such as automatics and semi-automatics, plus military hardware like grenade launchers and mortars and whatnot.

Virtually all firearms designed for target shooting, including all of those used in the Olympics, and the majority of hunting arms, are semi-automatic firearms.

A properly run gun registry of handguns, rifles, and shotguns (similar to car licensing, for example, as opposed to the tragicly expensive and ineffective mess currently on the books) is not inherently a bad idea.

Until the government decides to confiscate your arms.


But banning all guns? You guys are clearly urbanites. I agree that your average city dweller doesn't need a gun. But do try to remember that not everyone lives in a city, and some that do have legitimate interest in gun sports.

o_O And whatever happened to self-defense?

5. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
7. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people

How is that more crime per capita in canada?

Virtually all firearms designed for target shooting, including all of those used in the Olympics, and the majority of hunting arms, are semi-automatic firearms.



I stand corrected. I was unaware that most target shooting weapons were semi-automatics.

I disagree, however that most hunting weapons are - or need to be - semi-automatics. Bolt action rifles (etc) work just fine.

Ofcourse one state making their gun control laws tougher won't make a difference. That much is obvious, its like if one of the countries in the middle-east were to suddenly decide to disarm, what do you think would happen?

If gun control is to work, it has to be a federal issue not a state one, because one state banning guns will only, as you say and prove, make felons from other states rape and kill the citizens of another state.

It's not that simple.

Even if you ban guns, there will still be violent crime. In fact, in the UK, and Australia, in the aftermath of gun bans, violent crime went up.

Because now, the population was disarmed. Maryland felons know when they go out their door that no one will stop them. They are free to commit crime until the police accidentally happen upon them.

Even a Virginia felon who can't drive to Maryland - who may live in Richmond, the center of the state - knows that it's dangerous to try to rob or rape someone. He could be shot. So perhaps he turns to crime he knows will not involve confrontation. Larceny at an unattended house or store is much safer. It's also safer for the people he would otherwise have victimized.

33 states in the US now favor concealed carry. In those states, crime has dropped. It's just too dangerous to be a criminal. Even if you can't get to another state.

Until the government decides to confiscate your arms.

We license our drivers to make sure they can drive safely. We make them register their automobiles. Surprisingly enough, no one has tried to confiscate our cars. Why would anyone want to confiscate a (legal) gun?

I have no idea, heres a example, I go to visit a cousin of mine in long beach LA. We go down to a 7-11 and my cousin buys a glock for 200 bucks off some 14 year old kid standing on the corner.

I ask him what the fuck dude? He says this guy was pissing him off and if he comes by again, he will shoot the fuck. I end up cracking him in the face when he wasnt looking and throwing the gun into this canal.
That's a REALLY good price for a Glock. An NiB full-size Glock runs in the $500 USD area.

"33 states in the US now favor concealed carry. In those states, crime has dropped. It's just too dangerous to be a criminal. Even if you can't get to another state. "

Sort of like a balance of terror between citizens, then? I just hope it won't lead to widespread paranoia. I sure as hell would not want to live in a society where i know that the person standing next to me could be hiding a firearm on his person. Legally.

There is not more crime per capita in Canada than the US. What are you talking about? I don't understand what you are trying to stay, so I am afraid I'll misunderstand your point.

Please see this graph: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap&id=OECD

It is a comparison of total (reported) crime (not just gun crimes or violent crimes) per capita in the OECD countries.

Edit: It could be argued (and should be) that some of the countries lower on the list have more crime that isn't reported. But I think the US and Canada would be pretty much the same when it comes to tendency to report crimes, since our police forces don't tend to be criminals or corrupt, and our citizens are not afraid to report crimes, unlike what may be the situation in countries like Slovakia, Mexico, and Turkey.
I don't know where that site gets its numbers, but I take them right from the source -- the FBI and StatsCanada.

First, Canada:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 8884.8 (it's been increasing every year since 2000, by the way). Exclude traffic offenses, and it's still 8132.4
Violent crime: 962.8 (down sine 2000, but higher than the '99 rate)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm


And in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 4063.4 (almost exactly 1/2 the Canadian rate excluding traffic offenses )
Violent crime: 475.0 (less than 1/2 the Canadian rate)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls

Contrary to popular belief, the United States has one of the lowest crime rates (and violent crime rates) in the free world. Sweden has the highest, at around 13,000 per 100,000.

"33 states in the US now favor concealed carry. In those states, crime has dropped. It's just too dangerous to be a criminal. Even if you can't get to another state. "

Sort of like a balance of terror between citizens, then? I just hope it won't lead to widespread paranoia. I sure as hell would not want to live in a society where i know that the person standing next to me could be hiding a firearm on his person. Legally.

Nope. If your own life isn't worth protecting, and your own dignity isn't worth protecting, then what is?

If a man stronger than you can force you to service him sexually, and force you to give him money, does that not make you his slave?

Aren't you against slavery?

If he wants to kill you, will you stand there placidly while he peels the flesh from your face before simultaneously violating your body and strangling you?

No resistance? Then you would be happy in Maryland, where you will wait about 45 minutes for the police to arrive - if the attacker permits you to use your cell phone.

I have stopped further violence against myself twice - by merely indicating that I had a gun (well, it did come out). But no shots were fired. No one was arrested. There wasn't much to say. We went our separate ways.

Now I'm the same guy (and my wife does this too) who helps the homeless (we've got one living in our house - we are a sort of one-room homeless shelter). I'll give someone money or lunch if they need it - just ask, and if I have it, I'll give it.

But don't rob me. Don't tell me you want to rape me or my wife or children. Don't beat me for pleasure.

Maybe if crime becomes too difficult, people will do something else.

"33 states in the US now favor concealed carry. In those states, crime has dropped. It's just too dangerous to be a criminal. Even if you can't get to another state. "

Sort of like a balance of terror between citizens, then? I just hope it won't lead to widespread paranoia. I sure as hell would not want to live in a society where i know that the person standing next to me could be hiding a firearm on his person. Legally.


It is a bit nerve racking. I don't mind people carrying guns, but the laws give me abolutly no confidence that the carriers have the slightest idea hoe to use them. If you plan on carrying a gun you have the resposiblility to be properly trained. That means that you should be at the range at least three of four times a year. I'm not confidant that most of the holders around me have even fired once.

"33 states in the US now favor concealed carry. In those states, crime has dropped. It's just too dangerous to be a criminal. Even if you can't get to another state. "

Sort of like a balance of terror between citizens, then? I just hope it won't lead to widespread paranoia. I sure as hell would not want to live in a society where i know that the person standing next to me could be hiding a firearm on his person. Legally.
It's 37 now (plus, about half of Iowa lives in an effectively shall-issue county). Additionally, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Kansas (three of the no-issue hold-outs) permit open carry, and if you have a Firearms Owner Identification Card in Illinois, you can carry an unloaded, concealed handgun.

And there's no "blood running in the streets." The U.S. hasn't been safer in 40 years.

It is a bit nerve racking. I don't mind people carrying guns, but the laws give me abolutly no confidence that the carriers have the slightest idea hoe to use them. If you plan on carrying a gun you have the resposiblility to be properly trained. That means that you should be at the range at least three of four times a year. I'm not confidant that most of the holders around me have even fired once.
Many states require training, and virtually all serious CCWers shoot far more than 3-4 times a year.

Hell, police aren't required to shoot that often!

[QUOTE=Battlestar Christiania]Until the government decides to confiscate your arms.
QUOTE]


It would be logitically impossible to confiscate the weoponry in the US. The minute you started, thousand would be defending themselves. There would not be enough police and soldiers combined to carry it off.

As does the American rate.

Yes, but more CRIME, period, due in no small part to the fact than Canadians are severely restricted in their ability to defend themselves from criminals, and that the U.S. has much greater problems with illegal immigration and drug smuggling.


Ummm link up please. The USA has MORE violent crime than any developed country in the world.

I disagree, however that most hunting weapons are - or need to be - semi-automatics. Bolt action rifles (etc) work just fine.
Disagree all you like, but it's a fact.

Bolt-action rifles are just fine, but do you really want to go back to the 19th century, when male-only voting, racial segregation, quill and ink, horse and carriage were also "just fine"?

I don't know where that site gets its numbers, but I take them right from the source -- the FBI and StatsCanada.

First, Canada:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 8884.8 (it's been increasing every year since 2000, by the way). Exclude traffic offenses, and it's still 8132.4
Violent crime: 962.8 (down sine 2000, but higher than the '99 rate)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm


And in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 4063.4 (almost exactly 1/2 the Canadian rate excluding traffic offenses )
Violent crime: 475.0 (less than 1/2 the Canadian rate)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls

Contrary to popular belief, the United States has one of the lowest crime rates (and violent crime rates) in the free world. Sweden has the highest, at around 13,000 per 100,000.

<cough> But the FBI and Stats Canada aren't tracking all the same crimes on those reports. For example, Stats Canada includes drug crimes, the FBI report does not. The Canadian one reports 'Possession of Stolen Goods', the FBI ones does not. Same with drunk driving and so forth. These two reports are not tracking the same things. They are just tracking SOME of the same things.

That's a REALLY good price for a Glock. An NiB full-size Glock runs in the $500 USD area.


Gee could it have been stolen? It not like this kid was part of GLOCKco selling brand name guns. :rolleyes:

Many states require training, and virtually all serious CCWers shoot far more than 3-4 times a year.

Hell, police aren't required to shoot that often!


An hour class is not training. And around here there are not enough ranges for the number of registered holders to shoot. But nobody is clamering for more.

The police definatly shoud be required to shoot that often.

Battlestar Christiania:

Check the statistics you posted, the FBI document only accounts for crimes of violence, larceny/theft, burglary and motor vehicle theft. The canadian number you quoted was for criminal code offences, that is all offences. If you add the numbers of the same offences in Canada (crimes of violence & property crimes, to make it simpler) it comes to 5084.2 per 100 000 total. That is the number of crimes of violence (962.8) and property crimes (4121.4). Compared to the US, where the total of the property crimes and violent crimes is 4063.4. I admit, Canada is still higher but its nowhere near twice the number of the US.

Ummm link up please. The USA has MORE violent crime than any developed country in the world.
I don't know where that site gets its numbers, but I take them right from the source -- the FBI and StatsCanada.

First, Canada:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 8884.8 (it's been increasing every year since 2000, by the way). Exclude traffic offenses, and it's still 8132.4
Violent crime: 962.8 (down sine 2000, but higher than the '99 rate)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm


And in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 4063.4 (almost exactly 1/2 the Canadian rate excluding traffic offenses )
Violent crime: 475.0 (less than 1/2 the Canadian rate)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls

Contrary to popular belief, the United States has one of the lowest crime rates (and violent crime rates) in the free world. Sweden has the highest, at around 13,000 per 100,000.

And I can pull up numbers for the U.K., too. They make Canadian look downright peaceful. ;)

Disagree all you like, but it's a fact.

Bolt-action rifles are just fine, but do you really want to go back to the 19th century, when male-only voting, racial segregation, quill and ink, horse and carriage were also "just fine"?

[amazement] You're comparing the use of a bolt action rifle to male-only voting and racial segregation?

Yeesh, I got nothing to say to that. That's just ridiculous.

An hour class is not training.
No state in the U.S. with a CCW training requirement requires only an hour. Try 8-16.

The police definatly shoud be required to shoot that often.
Another issue enitrely.

[amazement] You're comparing the use of a bolt action rifle to male-only voting and racial segregation?

Yeesh, I got nothing to say to that. That's just ridiculous.
I'm saying that they're the same level of technological and social progression.

Battlestar Christiania:

Check the statistics you posted, the FBI document only accounts for crimes of violence, larceny/theft, burglary and motor vehicle theft. The canadian number you quoted was for criminal code offences, that is all offences. If you add the numbers of the same offences in Canada (crimes of violence & property crimes, to make it simpler) it comes to 5084.2 per 100 000 total. That is the number of crimes of violence (962.8) and property crimes (4121.4). Compared to the US, where the total of the property crimes and violent crimes is 4063.4. I admit, Canada is still higher but its nowhere near twice the number of the US.
Touché. However, that still gives Canada a significantly higher crime rate, and twice the violent crime rate.

My point stands: You can't blame crime on guns.

I don't know where that site gets its numbers, but I take them right from the source -- the FBI and StatsCanada.

First, Canada:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 8884.8 (it's been increasing every year since 2000, by the way). Exclude traffic offenses, and it's still 8132.4
Violent crime: 962.8 (down sine 2000, but higher than the '99 rate)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm


And in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 4063.4 (almost exactly 1/2 the Canadian rate excluding traffic offenses )
Violent crime: 475.0 (less than 1/2 the Canadian rate)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls

Contrary to popular belief, the United States has one of the lowest crime rates (and violent crime rates) in the free world. Sweden has the highest, at around 13,000 per 100,000.

And I can pull up numbers for the U.K., too. They make Canadian look downright peaceful. ;)


Again I would wager the USA rates are not reporting all crime. But you can also notice the lower rates of murder and rape in canada.

I don't know where that site gets its numbers, but I take them right from the source -- the FBI and StatsCanada.

First, Canada:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 8884.8 (it's been increasing every year since 2000, by the way). Exclude traffic offenses, and it's still 8132.4
Violent crime: 962.8 (down sine 2000, but higher than the '99 rate)
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm


And in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Total crime rate per hundred thousand for 2003: 4063.4 (almost exactly 1/2 the Canadian rate excluding traffic offenses )
Violent crime: 475.0 (less than 1/2 the Canadian rate)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls

Contrary to popular belief, the United States has one of the lowest crime rates (and violent crime rates) in the free world. Sweden has the highest, at around 13,000 per 100,000.


Comparing apples to oranges . The FBI statistics are not inclusive.
The defined set for the FBI report for violent crimes includes these categories:

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault

The Canadian Statistics include the following:
Homicide
Attempted murder
Assaults (level 1 to 3)
Sexual assault
Other sexual offences
Robbery
Other crimes of violence

I should point out that under canadian law rape is a subset of sexual assault. It includes what would be described in the US as unlawfull sexual touching or some such. Penetration is not required for this charge as it is in forcible rape. The other sexual offenses would include things such as prostitution charges, possession of child porography, etc.

The Other crimes of violence includes such elements as unlawfully causing bodily harm, discharging firearms with intent, abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers and other assaults.

and the level for the included assaults is very different too. From the footnote:
"Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person. "Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm" is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm. "Aggravated assault level 3" is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.


The canadian system does not differentiate in the same as the US does regarding felony versus misdemeanour offences, and this FBI list seems to be restricted to felony offenses, and even then I find it odd to see no mention whatsoever of abduction, prostitution, common assault, attempted murder, and lessor sexual offenses than forcible rape..

So your comparison of these statistics is rather suspect in my opinion.

Again I would wager the USA rates are not reporting all crime. But you can also notice the lower rates of murder and rape in canada.
And you would find those differences regardless of gun ownership rates and the differing gun laws. The causes run far deeper.

Touché. However, that still gives Canada a significantly higher crime rate, and twice the violent crime rate.

My point stands: You can't blame crime on guns.


I blame the higher american crime rates on americans being more violent myself....

No state in the U.S. with a CCW training requirement requires only an hour. Try 8-16.

.


Here we even offer the course over the internet. Play the video, go watch the game while its on. Gives one a lot of confidence that the guy next to you knows what he's doing. We also seem to take back a lot of permits that get issued to felons and the like, eventually we catch them, I guess. As I said I have no problem with people who know what they're doing carrying a gun around. But as the laws are presenly set up, I don't think most of them do.

Mountain of evidence shows gun control doesn't work

Last month, the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked.

The study was not the work of gun-control opponents. The panel was set up during the Clinton administration, and all but one of its members (whose views on guns were publicly known before their appointments) favored gun control.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref08x.html

:D

Comparing apples to oranges . The FBI statistics are not inclusive.
The defined set for the FBI report for violent crimes includes these categories:

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault

The Canadian Statistics include the following:
Homicide
Attempted murder
Assaults (level 1 to 3)
Sexual assault
Other sexual offences
Robbery
Other crimes of violence

I should point out that under canadian law rape is a subset of sexual assault. It includes what would be described in the US as unlawfull sexual touching or some such. Penetration is not required for this charge as it is in forcible rape. The other sexual offenses would include things such as prostitution charges, possession of child porography, etc.

The Other crimes of violence includes such elements as unlawfully causing bodily harm, discharging firearms with intent, abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers and other assaults.

The canadian system does not differentiate in the same as the US does regarding felony versus misdemeanour offences, and this FBI list seems to be restricted to felony offenses, and even then I find it odd to see no mention whatsoever of abduction, prostitution, common assault, attempted murder, and lessor sexual offenses than forcible rape..

So your comparison of these statistics is rather suspect in my opinion.

It is very suspect imho. :D

There's a syaing in stats which says 'all things being equal' though neither of these reporting agencies have the same scope. The FBI is narrowed to felonies and multi-jurisiductional offenses.

There's a syaing in stats which says 'all things being equal' though neither of these reporting agencies have the same scope. The FBI is narrowed to felonies and multi-jurisiductional offenses.
The FBI collects figures from local law enforcement for the UCR.

The Red staters talking about family values!

Thats really runny, because the red states have the highest % of divorce!

Thats the beauty of it! They have their own little idea that divorce is natural but gay marriage is Liberal influence who as we all know have their campaigns sponsored by the devil!!!!!

Ummm link up please. The USA has MORE violent crime than any developed country in the world.
Go see the work of the Small Arms Survey. Perhaps you should check out the violent crime in Brazil.

Also, most of the US violent crime is not the product of guns. I refer you to the US Department of Justice for that.

You'll find that Small Arms Survey cannot prove a solid link between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime and rates of murder.

It depends on what country you are in.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org

They also acknowledge that in the US, violent crime that would ordinarily be prevented by the presence of people with firearms would be free to occur.

What do guns and violkent crime have to do with this thread again? I skipped a few pages, and now I'm lost.

Okay, Battlestar Christiania - Zeppistan, Jokath, and I have all shown different reasons why comparing the Stats Can crime stats to the FBI crime stats is inappropriate and inaccuate. In short, the FBI link you gave only lists a small subset of crimes while the Stats Canada site is all inclusive. Furthermore, the sub-sets listed in the FBI report are not directly comparable to the Canadian subsets listed in their report.

Can you find any statistics that back up your claim that are all inclusive? For example, a 'Stats USA' site that that does list all US crime? That would be helpful for resolving this dispute.

The FBI collects figures from local law enforcement for the UCR.

Q4. Which specific crimes are reported to the UCR Program, and why were these crimes identified for reporting?

A4. The selected offenses are 1) Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter, 2) Forcible Rape, 3) Robbery, 4) Aggravated Assault, 5) Burglary, 6) Larceny-Theft, 7) Motor Vehicle Theft, and 8) Arson. These are serious crimes by nature and/or volume. Not all crimes, such as Embezzlement, are readily brought to the attention of the police. Also, some serious crimes, such as Kidnapping, occur infrequently. Therefore, for practical purposes, the reporting of offenses known is limited to the selected crime classifications because they are the crimes most likely to be reported and most likely to occur with sufficient frequency to provide an adequate basis for comparison.



I'd spend all day punching gaping holes in your logic but I gotta work. :D

What do guns and violkent crime have to do with this thread again? I skipped a few pages, and now I'm lost.

We all hijacked ourselves onto another topic after Whispering Legs accidentally posted a comment about crime in this thread when he actually meant to post it into another thread. By the time he realized his error, we were all off-road.

Okay, Battlestar Christiania - Zeppistan, Jokath, and I have all shown different reasons why comparing the Stats Can crime stats to the FBI crime stats is inappropriate and inaccuate. In short, the FBI link you gave only lists a small subset of crimes while the Stats Canada site is all inclusive. Furthermore, the sub-sets listed in the FBI report are not directly comparable to the Canadian subsets listed in their report.

Can you find any statistics that back up your claim that are all inclusive? For example, a 'Stats USA' site that that does list all US crime? That would be helpful for resolving this dispute.

The Small Arms Survey site says that there isn't a common statistical model for all nations - nor a common source. Nor do they collect data in the same way. And for data they can try to match across nations, they have still not been able to show a solid link between gun ownership and gun violence.

What applies in the US does not apply in Canada. Sweden and Norway have different gun laws and different rates of gun violence - but not what anti-gun people would predict. Luxembourg has no gun ownership - but a gun murder rate nearly as high as the US.

Can't apply one country's success to all countries...

And so...

After all this...

I'm back on topic...

Because we like something in the US, doesn't mean we should call up our friends in Canada and abuse them.

Just like those people in the UK that really hated Bush should never have called up people in Ohio and told them who to vote for.

You have fun in your country - and if you find something that works for you, then that's just grand. DON'T TRY AND SELL US ON IT.

Oops. That means that Bush shouldn't try and peddle democracy to the Middle East...

I don't know where that site gets its numbers,

Nationmasters gets its stats from the United Nations. The United Nations get their stats from each nation's governments.

For precise sources for all of the statistics it covers, please see its Sources page:

http://www.nationmaster.com/sources.php

The Small Arms Survey site says that there isn't a common statistical model for all nations - nor a common source. Nor do they collect data in the same way. And for data they can try to match across nations, they have still not been able to show a solid link between gun ownership and gun violence.



Actually, I was asking Battlestar C. for stats on total crime, not just gun crime, as she was purporting that total crime was higher per capita in Canada than the US. I had stats from Nationmaster that said otherwise, so I was asking her to back up her claim, that's all. That's where we had the problem with the two sites that didn't directly compare, so I was hoping she could find one that was better.

After all, if what she is saying is true, I want to know about it, and nag my MPs into doing something about it.

Actually, I was asking Battlestar C. for stats on total crime, not just gun crime, as she was purporting that total crime was higher per capita in Canada than the US. I had stats from Nationmaster that said otherwise, so I was asking her to back up her claim, that's all. That's where we had the problem with the two sites that didn't directly compare, so I was hoping she could find one that was better.

After all, if what she is saying is true, I want to know about it, and nag my MPs into doing something about it.


canada still has high crime, just no where as high as the states. To think otherwise is nuts. One just has to drive into detroit...

Thats not to say that we in canada sure as hell cant do a better job. Throwing away the key for rapists, murders, child molesters comes to mind...

Thats not to say that we in canada sure as hell cant do a better job. Throwing away the key for rapists, murders, child molesters comes to mind...

Those are certainly the hot button issues! I am tempted to agree - as long as there was DNA evidence to prove that the person convicted was indeed the person who committed the crime.

I think one David Milgaard is more than enough. Not to mention all those years of his life he lost in jail, while the real criminal was safe and scot-free because someone else had been nailed.

Isn't everyone getting a bit off-topic here? This is supposed to be about US pressure on Canadian same-sex marriges, not gun law/control

Where have you been? we've been off topic for 4 or 5 pages by now. Noone's complained yet, so we just went ahead. Fun. Lots of fun!

We may as well go back on topic as Battlestar Christiania has gone off-line.

Sigh. Why is it that so many people that I try to debate quit before we're done?

Oh right! A life! Jobs! Family! :D

i say all of us sensible-minded people who aren't bigots write in to the canadian policy makers and voice our opnion..

i say all of us sensible-minded people who aren't bigots write in to the canadian policy makers and voice our opnion..

Well, only if you're Canadian.

I don't care if you're pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage, you shouldn't be voicing your opinion directly to our MPs if you're from another nation.

You can, however, post in forums and editorialize in newspapers and radio talk shows all you like. :)

let's get back on topic

stop interfering in other countries' political process

Legal same sex marriages in Canada will effect the US. How many hundreds of Americans will hop across the border for a quick wedding, then return to the US and use the courts to beat the government into submission?
considering that the u.s. doesn't even recognize canadian same sex marriages.

furthermore, why can't the gay people in the u.s. go to massetucets(sp?) they've got legal gay marriage, don't they?

And can the US please stop feeding stupid ideas into it's puppet John Howard in Australia? The abortion debate has been restarted by white Christian MALE members of the government, it is causing concern among the women of Australia even the female members of the government.

We've banned same-sex marriage already and Australia is become little America if this goes on too long.


Serves you bastards right for sending us Rupert Murkoch ;)

considering that the u.s. doesn't even recognize canadian same sex marriages.

furthermore, why can't the gay people in the u.s. go to massetucets(sp?) they've got legal gay marriage, don't they?

Yes, but the Federal Government, and, I think, all the other states except Vermont and Canada don't recognize them. On the other hand, if all those gay couples actually took up residence in Mass. then it might be nice to see all that representation taken away from the red states that they abandon.

i say all of us sensible-minded people who aren't bigots write in to the canadian policy makers and voice our opnion..

That's the problem with representative democracy. Insanity isn't recognized if it's culturally excusable.

We need to set up the Australian system, or maybe a system where you get two votes. One vote for who you like, and one against who you hate.