Last night’s tracking showed a noticeable jump in Bloc support in Quebec coinciding with attacks on Stephen Harper’s views and comments related to culture.
Results of today’s CPAC-Nanos tracking poll show the Tories holding strong nationally at 37% support. The Liberals trail 11 points behind at 26%, followed by the NDP at 21%, the Bloc Québécois at 9% and the Green Party at 7 %. The Bloc Québécois has regained ground in Quebec, while the Conservatives and Liberals remain statistically tied in the province of Ontario. At 39%, Stephen Harper heads Canada’s choice for Prime Minister, followed by Jack Layton at 17%. Stéphane Dion drops to 11%, with Elizabeth May scoring 5% and Gilles Duceppe 3%.
Tune in to Prime Time Politics with Peter Van Dusen tonight at 8 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website at http://www.nanosresearch.com.
Methodology and Results
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on September 22, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,003, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 37 (-1)
- Liberal Party 26 (-1)
- NDP 21 (NC)
- BQ 9% (+1)
- Green Party 7% (+1)
- Undecided 16% (-1)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,201,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper 39% (+2)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 17% (-1)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 11% (-2)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 5% (+1)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (NC)
- None of them 9% (-1)
- Unsure 16% (+1)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
- The most trustworthy leader
- The most competent leader
- The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
- Stephen Harper 108 (-5)
- Jack Layton 47 (+3)
- Stephane Dion 32 (-6)
- Gilles Duceppe 19 (+6)
- Elizabeth May 18 (+5)
What do you think?
Cheers, NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
Definately a spike for bloc support in quebec. A mistake on harper's part to blo... more
Foxer (British Columbia) 24 Sep 14:15
Majority! Majority! Majority!... more
hsingh (British Columbia) 24 Sep 14:18
Yes it is a spike for Bloc support, but according to a reporter from LaPresse mo... more
Rosebud in BC (British Columbia) 24 Sep 14:41
That's possible - i think it will generally affect them in quebec a little for ... more
Foxer (British Columbia) 24 Sep 14:45
If the Tories do have a hidden agenda - stuff they won't talk about but would do... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 24 Sep 15:23
I agree. Ridculous to be spending our tax dollars to air Wheel of Fortune and Je... more
kschell (Ontario) 24 Sep 15:29
Comments
Foxer
Definately a spike for bloc support in quebec. A mistake on harper's part to blow off the funding cuts like that. He's right of course - they DID increase funding overall - but now he looks a little callous towards the arts community.
It'll probably be short lived, but only if he comes forward with a much more positive message for quebec to repair this mistake.
Libs down again and the ndp isn't - thats still within the margin of error of course, but it's not what the libs wanted to see. They're within 5 points now.
[updated Wed Sep 24 14:15:54 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 14:15
36 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hsingh
Majority! Majority! Majority!
[updated Wed Sep 24 14:18:28 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 14:18
26 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Interesting dion's leadership scores fell again last night. Sooner or later that's going to translate into very bad news for dion - he SHOULD have had a bump from his platform release but instead it looks like it was not well received by people at all. I think people really don't trust what he says.
That may be in part to the fact liberals have broken promises so often - but I also have to wonder if it isn't due to the vagueness and complexity of the liberal plan. It's a very complex plan that's very short on details, making it hard to understand even for people who study that kind of stuff for a living.
I think a lot of people look at that and immediately assume the politician is hiding something. Regardless of the politician.
Dion should have spelt things out much more clearly - like 'how much carbon will the green tax save'? Simple things like that are very important to people.
I think dion's problem is he's a concept guy - but really falls short on details.
[updated Wed Sep 24 14:52:12 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 14:52
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
This poll and many others appear to be holding very steady for the Conservatives and the Best PM numbers show Harper (39%) increasing his lead over Dion (11%). Not in majority territory yet but would deliver a solid minority government.
[updated Wed Sep 24 14:59:19 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 14:59
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MSH
This is the electoral equivalent to World War II, and very unfortunately for Dion and the Liberals they find themselves playing the role of Germany, fighting a losing battle on two fronts: To the west he has hit an immovable wall in the "Commonwealth/American" Tories, and to the east where he has previously taken ground easily his army, starving on meagre campaign rations, now faces the resurgent "Soviet" NDP. (apologies to Liberal supporters/apologists who might see an inference to Hitler when I mention Dion--Dion is certainly not the equivalent to the notoriously evil Hitler, nor do I mean to imply we'd see negative consequences of that scale should Dion become PM--I very simply mean to compare the tactical situations of the war and the election campaign).
The lukewarm reaction to the Liberal platform may be the death knell. It seems not to dispel the image painted in the Tory "not worth the risk" attack ads but instead give them credibility. This week we've seen inconsistent budgetary estimates (casting doubt on the "revenue neutrality" of the "green shift" plan) as well as inconsistency in philosophy (a green shift plan that is supposed to be "tough on polluters" but is easy on "Ontario polluters" with breaks on gasoline and other carbon taxes that would impact that provinces manufacturing and transportation sectors..and now a promise to rescind income trust taxes...perhaps to bribe western voters with the biggest beef over the subject?).
Being an Albertan disgruntled with the Tories pulling a Trudeau-style turnabout on an economic policy in the trust tax grab, Dion's proposal to reverse the tax seems appealing...but being an Albertan I also view the Liberals with deep distrust--even more so than I have with Flaherty's brain trust. Trusts are a good vehicle to fund income-producing-but-depreciating assets, and making them tax free would promote the exploitation of established oil and gas fields to exhaustion, with the income being distributed to unit holders given priority over investment in new "greener" technology.
Since that aspect of an income trust tax cut seems to run counter to the "green shift" I just KNOW there has to be a big asterisk on that platform plank written in invisible ink. I suspect other trusts like REITs will benefit fully but royalty trusts will be slapped with some other punitive measure of a sort that would make Trudeau and his middle finger proud. I think many westerners have been coloured "unimpressed". The Tories "not worth the risk" attack campaign is "negative done right" and very shrewd and sharp. It won't make voters love them but it reinforces Harper's economic track record.
Canada might be struggling but we've been doing much better than the US in the past year under Harper's leadership, and without a doubt it is the US-led credit crunch and not Harper policies that sparked the downturn seen round the globe. We here see that and view a PM with an economist background and pragmatic approach as the safest, if not ideal, choice leading into potential recessionary times.
In the east "Comrade Layton" is looking pretty confident too...and he is running a surprisingly sharp campaign, notwithstanding what he..ahem..might've been smoking. Not since Broadbent ran the politburo have they sustained support in the 20s for any great time. Whether or not the NDP's policies are rooted in reality, at least they are consistent and clear and different from the government (at a time when the Liberals' elite sound rather NDPish and the Tories are increasingly harder to distinguish from disgruntled former Martinites still in the Liberal tent)--very much what voters crave at the moment. Those t-shirts with the Dion Liberal voting record...genius strategy!
With "der Führer Dion" fighting on two fronts and presenting a platform that is a bit hastily put together the Liberals are looking a bit desperate. The game is changing--a majority for the Tories is still very questionable, but now the NDP are edging towards statistical tie with Liberals. Strategic voting will not work for Dion at that point...not if voters want a minority that would REALLY keep the Tories in check.
[updated Wed Sep 24 16:24:08 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 16:24
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Don't Harper's Wars on Terror/Crime Violate UN Conventions? Look at these:
Article 37 (rights of kids)
Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
Now, let's not even talk about Omar Kadr, whom Mr. Harper has left twisting (and tortured) in the wind down at Gitmo. Or his age of sexual consent madness.
14 yeal olds! 15 year olds! What can this man be thinking?
I'll tell you what, he doesn't care about right and wrong. He doesn't care about facts. He's an ideological freak with a hidden agenda. To quote Mr. Harper, we won't recognize Canada when's he's done with it.
That's why ABC or ABH has to take hold, and fast.
[updated Wed Sep 24 20:07:46 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 20:07
51 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Well - first off canada isn't actually holding any prisoners. So that's out right off the bat.
Second, nobody is talking about killing the kid (who isn't a kid anymore). Nor is there discussion of life in prison. He hasn't gone to trial yet and that's because it took quite a while just to figure out where he should be going to trial (military or civvie court).
And while i doubt he's enjoying his stay - i've seen nothing demonstrating torture. People toss that word around pretty easily these days. But - so far i've heard no evidence that anyone's even tried to extract information from him.
The only stories discussing anything even close to that happened shortly after his capture - while the LIBERALS were in power.
Here's the facts - the 'kid' is accused of throwing a grenade and killing people while not a soldier. That'd be murder. He did this act in a foreign country and was arrested by a foreign combatant nation, who is trying him for his crimes against them.
This was allowed by the liberal gov't, and the cpc gov't has said it will have observers present at his trial to ensure it's fair and in keeping with the US principles of law and justice.
THe kid has a lawyer and will be represented fairly.
The rest of your comments are largely idealistic emotion-based crapola grande. The facts are simple, and both the liberal and cpc gov'ts have acted similarly. I don't feel the need to do the kid any unique favors above what the law requires.
As to sex - the new sexual consent laws simply prevent adults from having sex with 14 year olds. I guess you feel it's ok for 14 year olds to be blowing people up and having sex with older men, but i think you're in the minority. Kids of 'similar' age won't fall under this law, so if a 16 year old has sex with a 14 year old there's no crime - but really, 19 year olds and 20 + year olds should know better than to be taking 14 year olds to bed.
[updated Wed Sep 24 21:24:49 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 21:24
christine
This was the position taken by the by the Supreme Court of Canada when it addressed this very issue earlier this year. Here's an analysis:
----------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court ruled in R v. D.B., released on May 16, 2008, that a measure that allows for the automatic lifting of publication bans on the identity of young offenders is a violation of principles of fundamental justice guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In support of its decision, the majority of the Court cited The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, an international convention that guarantees a minimum amount of protection for young offenders.
------------------------------------------------
So, if the Conservatives were to impose their changes not only would they be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they would also be violating a United Nations convention to which Canada is a signatory.
[updated Wed Sep 24 21:52:59 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 21:52
kschell
christine, notice the word 'automatic' in the first line of the decision.
Harper's proposal is to give judges the discretion to do publication bans. This is different than automatically lifting them.
Same thing with sentencing - all they are talking about doing is increasing the maximum sentence. Judges get to decide the actual sentence based on the merits of the case.
There have been very few cases that would merit this, but there have been some. When someone 14-18 commits cold-blooded murder and shows no remorse there needs to be consequences. The slap on the wrist they often get now does nothing to educate them. A longer sentence in a facility designed to educate and rehabilitate is warranted in these cases IMHO.
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:14:13 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:14
christine
The principle is the same whether it is "automatic" or "discretionary". In either case it would be a violation of both the Charter and the UN convention.
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:20:43 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:20
Foxer
I think you guys are mixing and matching stuff.
First off - with publication bans the issue is 'onus' . You can't put the onus on the kid to prove it SHOULDN"T be lifted. However - there is no reason in the world that the law can't be changed to eliminate it entirely from sentancing for some crimes. That's not what our law says currently tho - and it's not in keeping with the fundimentals of justice to force the kid to prove the law should apply to him.
Secondly, as kschell points out, there is a difference between making someone automatically be an adult, and increasing youth sentances.
There is no charter rule that says we cannot increase youth sentences. Sentences greater than adult sentances would likely be considered a violation. But lets not pretend we can't increase the time of incarceration for young criminals.
in the case cited, the problem was that an adult sentance was presumed to apply under certain conditions and it's up to the youth to prove that it shouldn't.
BTW - here's the case you cited.
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=R.+v.+D.B.%2C+2008&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc25/2008scc25.html
[updated Thu Sep 25 00:29:52 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 00:29
christine
Both Scott Ross and Scott Tribe have discussed this issue at some length on their blogs. Here are the links if you want to take a look:
http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2008/09/conservatives-are-legally-ignorant.html
http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2008/09/24/will-harper-invoke-notwithstanding-clause-to-pass-his-youth-crime-bill/
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:37:36 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:37
christine, Harper's war on crime is an obscenity, a crude step backwards in Canadian progress. No matter one's age, lock 'em up. Expose them. Punish, punish, punish.
Except it doesn't work.. Look at the US compared to Eueope. And think about drug crimes.
My god. Our whole criminal justice system is cranked up against illicit drugs, no matter how harmless. Compare alchohol to grass? It's a total joke.
Yet, the police spend incredible resources watching and entrapping drug pushers and users, I'll bet 20 times the amount they spend on fighting the harm caused by alcoholics.
It gets worse. Once in the priion system, abstinence from drugs and alcohol are almost an automatic condition of getting out on parole. I would guess that almost every political party leader and MP could not meet this test.
Yet we insist on it for our offenders and, when they screw up (drinking a beer or smoking a joint), back they go for another year or two. Costing taxpayers $75k vs. $7.5k if still under parole. Often, no other criminal offense was involved.
And often, intoxicants had nothing to do with the original offense so there was no cause to place such a condition in the first place.
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:33:07 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:33
Foxer
England has a higher violent crime rate than america does at the moment.
And america's crime rate fell like crazy over most of the last 20 years or so.
So - how do you reconcile those facts with your statements.
[updated Thu Sep 25 00:03:58 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 00:03
Yes, Foxer, we should emulate the American's wars on drugs and crime. There's a shining success story, what with 2 million citizens in jail, mostly black and poor.
This tough on crime stuff is totally bogus. Based on false fears, created by hysterical politicians, decades of TV shows about the poor police and criminals getting off Scot free and daily headlines screaming the same. Do you think people are actually deterred by stiffer sentences. Do you actually agree with sending 14 year olds to prison? To removing publication bans?
[updated Thu Sep 25 07:01:48 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 07:01
Foxer
I love how if we do ANYTHING that's even REMOTELY like america, somehow this has become a despicable crime.
Actually - the American model worked. Crime has gone down considerably - america's violent crime rate is LOWER than canada's, on the whole things improved. There are some real flaws in how they did it tho, and that's something we can learn from and do better.
And lets be
[updated Thu Sep 25 11:45:50 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 11:45
Foxer
woops - hit the button there by accident :)
And lets be realistic - the number of crimes committed by criminals on parole or on bail is huge. Huge. And while i haven't looked at the crime stats for this year - about 80 percent of all crimes in canada are committed by people who already had criminal records. Which means we're not dealing with them.
So - how do we deal with that? What we are doing is NOT working.
Personally - i prefer a graduated system. First offence - assume he's able to be rehabilitated, go soft, work with him on rehab, etc. Second offense - much stiffer, work with him on rehab. Third .. this guy is rehab resistant - just get him the hell off the streets permanently.
Fact is - a finger in jail can't pull a trigger.
Now - if you have ANOTHER idea that is better than our current system, i'd love to hear it. I'm not about 'punishment' - i'm about solving the problem But so far the other parties haven't provided a single thing - and we've been trying the liberal way for 20 years now. It has FAILED. Our violent crime rate is very high, and youth violence is getting worse.
[updated Thu Sep 25 11:51:23 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 11:51
Lex Llewdor
Of course. Any reasonable person would be deterred by fear of punishment.
If people aren't being deterred, then our punishment is insufficiently scary.
[updated Thu Sep 25 12:46:22 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 12:46
Foxer
Well - it goes one of two ways. Either they are deterred, or they cannot be rehabilitated and are not deterred and are bound in determined to kill or commit violent crimes.
For the ones who are deterred - it works.
For the ones who are not it takes them off the streets where the can't hurt people and THAT works.
Giving someone a break the first offense may work - some folks will take that to heart and go straight. If they don't - lock 'em the hell up and keep 'em there. A finger in jail can't pull a trigger.
[updated Thu Sep 25 13:30:35 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 13:30
Lex Llewdor
Rehabilitation can't work. Unless you're an idiot who didn't understand what you were doing, any motivation sufficient to cause you to break the law can work again later.
Deterrence is our best tool.
Our prisons clearly aren't scary enough - does anyone really fear jail anymore?
[updated Thu Sep 25 13:55:10 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 13:55
Foxer
Some people respond to it. Sometimes people do something they wouldn't normally do, and if they get spanked they never do it again.
Others are 'carreer' types. There is no rehab'ing them. They just learn how to milk the system and avoid jail time.
The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaf.
Giving people a break on a first offense is one thing. But by the second or third offense, it's obvious theyr'e not going to learn.
There are criminals in vancouver with over 200 convictions. There is zero chance of rehab for those guys. The only way to protect society is to lock them up and be done with it.
At that point - i don't care if they 'fear' prison or not - they're gone period. They ain't going to be bugging me in jail.
[updated Thu Sep 25 14:55:27 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 14:55
Homicide rates in US, UK and Canada, 2000-07, per 100k? 5.7, 2.03 and 1.85, respectively. This, Foxer, is a fact..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
[updated Thu Sep 25 07:42:17 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 07:42
Foxer
Go back and check the violent crime rate . And check if it's rising or falling.
Murder is hardly the only violent crime my friend.
Here's an article - a little old (2001) but i don't have time to dig up all the latest numbers for you. Canada's violent crime rate is higher than america's too, which you can dig up with a little work.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."
cont.....
[updated Thu Sep 25 11:45:57 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 11:45
Foxer
And as to canada:
Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 2:59 p.m. EST
Canada's Crime Rate 50 % Higher than U.S.
Press reports that Canada is a Shangri-la – an America with free health care and less crime – may be short sighted.
In fact, statistics show that the violent crime rate there is double that of the United States.
It seems Canada is looking for a scapegoat, too: Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is blaming the United States for his country’s violent crime wave. He says his southern neighbor is eagerly bringing guns over the border.
According to the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb, writing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Martin is wrong for blaming Canada’s rise in violent crime on criminals smuggling guns from the United States.
Gottlieb says the blame instead belongs on Canadian crooks getting guns from wherever they can.
"Blaming the United States for Canadian crime is an argument that does not pass the smell test,” Gottlieb wrote. "Canada's experience has simply demonstrated that no matter what kind of gun control law a government passes, that law is doomed to failure because instead of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, the law disarms the wrong people. Canada's gun control scheme has not just failed - it has failed disastrously. Clear evidence of that can be found in a comparison of the crime rates for Canada and America.”
Gottlieb cites an article by Canada's National Post columnist David Frum where he revealed that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States.” Moreover, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80 percent of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada’s 10 biggest cities.”
He also cites the most recent complete data available from both countries that shows that in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.
Moreover, he cites research that showed the figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was more than twice that of the United States: 746 to America’s 295. Also, in 2005, Toronto had 78 murders; that’s a 28 percent increase in homicides since 1995.
"The situation hasn't improved for Canada; it has here,” he wrote.
"Moreover, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted ‘right-to-carry’ and ‘shall-issue’ handgun laws. During the same period, Canada’s gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry being implemented,” he added.
"Since declaring war on guns under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation’s history.”
Gottlieb wrote that "Frum put it best when he claimed, ‘Gun registration and gun bans ... do not work,’ adding later: ‘It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals.’”
Martin and the Liberals are not the solution to violent crime in Canada, Gottlieb wrote. "They're the problem.”
Gottlieb concluded that "the disparity in crime rates says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fighting back if necessary.”
[updated Thu Sep 25 12:05:54 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 12:05
Lex Llewdor
In all fairness, the US and Canada define violent crime differently, so it's not eally an apples to apples comparison.
But you're right about the violent crime rates not matching the murder rates at all.
This is much like gun control advocates who point out that people are more like to die by gunfire in a society with more guns in it. Well of course, buit I don't really car how people die - a more relevant question would be how many people die. Maybe gun ownership reduces stabbings. I don't know.
But I do know that if it matters, we should measure it.
[updated Thu Sep 25 13:53:40 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 13:53
Foxer
Yes - you can't compare the reported violent crime rate from statcan directly with the fed numbers from the states. We calculate them differently.
BUT - there is a statcan report explaining how to 'convert' them so that you can do a reasonable comparison.
And the un did it's own independant study and we came out worse there too. That was 2001.
And actually - in places with more gun control have more deaths. Look at russia - more killings but tighter gun control. Switzerland on the ohter hand has a pretty average homocide rate compared to canada and lower than the states - and the law REQUIRES them to keep an assault rifle in their homes.
[updated Thu Sep 25 14:02:35 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 14:02
Bernie
christine Harper knows as well as you and I that he cannot do this. He knows it is in violation of the Supreme Court ruling and also the United Nations convention which Canad agrees to.
No he doesn't care. He is doing it for political reasons. He knows that the are extreme right wing voters out there and he wants to make sure he gets their votes.
It's just a dishonest way of getting votes and he knows it. But those who have no idea of what justice is will likely vote for him
I also laugh at him going around the country proposing "new" policies which happen to old things he has been promising for over two years.
And his lies are getting worse. His boasting of his economics and his denigrating of the much better Liberal economic record is nothing but lies.
And John Baird's reply to the Dion's Liberal platform was pure unadulterated lies.
I don't know how anybody can vote for someone like that running the country.
[updated Thu Sep 25 07:47:17 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 07:47
christine
Of course you are right about Harper, and it is my belief as well. The trouble is many of his supporters don't realize how they are being used by him.
[updated Thu Sep 25 10:23:18 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 10:23
Lex Llewdor
We're allowed to violate UN rules. We just have to announce it at the UN and then we won't be party to that agreement anymore.
UN resolutions aren't binding.
I don't even see why we belong to the UN. What do we get out of it?
[updated Thu Sep 25 12:47:31 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 12:47
Enlightened one
I am not sure where you get your info but you sound less credible each time I read a post from you.
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:06:46 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:06
larryl
Enlightened. Could you please let the rest of us know who is less credible?These things show up in the weirdest places. They don't always make sense if in the wrong place.
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:35:42 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:35
Credibility comes from facts. What are yours?
[updated Wed Sep 24 22:36:54 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 22:36
Enlightened one
rsharp . Anyone can interpret information acording to their political leanings and call it fact. A lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum do it, but it doesn't make it the truth.
[updated Wed Sep 24 23:07:35 -0400 2008]
24 Sep 23:07
Foxer
And the facts provided are pretty thin. In fact nonexistant. For example - suggesting it's harper's crime that another nation is holding a criminal for trial is nonsense.
I notice also he doesn't comment on the liberal gov't that was in power when the boy was captured. Wasn't it THEIR war? It wasn't harper that sent us after all - it was the liberals.
[updated Thu Sep 25 00:05:51 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 00:05
I've commented many times about Canada's child soldier and how our refusal to get him out of Gitmo is shameful. At least the Liberals admit their mistake and would do so now.
Harper? He has blind faith in anything American, including its military justice system. No matter how discredited, by legal experts everywhere. How about those facts? They don't matter to Harper. Nor it would appear, to you.
[updated Thu Sep 25 07:08:14 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 07:08
MRM
Of course Paul Martin is now calling for the release of Khadr but did nothing for three years when he was PM. He did nothing because he knew nothing could be done. Unlike most European countries and Australia our liberal criminal law would mean that the moment he set foot on Canadian soil he could not be charged and would be released. He also knew that the US would never agree to that.
Because Paul Martin is morally bankrupt, like the shell of a party he now represents he has chosen to use the situation for political reasons instead of telling the truth.
As for young Khadr there is plenty of evidence that suggests that he is guilty of not only murdering a medic trying to save his sorry little ass but there is also lots of video of him making bombs and vowing to kill westerners the first chance he gets. Of course while he was born in Canada, he learned all of this while being raised in a Pakistani so called Madrassah or religious school for terrorists. Until of course his father took him to live with Osama Bin Laden. So what Martin will also not admit is that he did want the little terrorist loose on Canadian soil to continue his holy war against us domestically with what we now was a domestic terrorist cell with close ties to him and his family that was planning to attack Parliament.
[updated Thu Sep 25 08:41:53 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 08:41
MRM
Sorry, that last post should read - did NOT want the little terrorist loose....
[updated Thu Sep 25 08:44:55 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 08:44
Foxer
Yeah. You've commented on it rsharp, but you're still wrong no matter how often you do. Sorry.
We didn't lift a finger for our boys captured by the Vietnamese in the war - why would we lift a finger for this kid who actually fought AGAINST our allies in this one?
[updated Thu Sep 25 11:53:32 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 11:53
Far as I can tell, he was in a compound under attack by the Americans. He or another person may have thrown a grenade in self-defence. He was fighting a war of aggression, in favour of the home team. Does that make him a terrorist?
And, again, you two, he was 15 years old! He's been through hell for 5+ years; Are you so radicalized that you can't see the underlying values at stake?
The way you guys operate, bin Laden wins.
[updated Thu Sep 25 17:21:53 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 17:21
Foxer
No - it makes him a murderer if he wasn't under uniform. Which is of course the questions - did he do the killing and was he or was he not a lawful combatant. A non-combatant that kills a soldier is a murderer, same as if he'd just walked up to someone on the street and stabbed them.
Of course - he will argue those two things are not the case, and his lawyer will present the evidence. If he's guilty he'll be in trouble, if he's not he will be processed like any other prisoner of war.
15 years old... tell me, how old do you need to be before illegally killing someone in a foreign conflict is wrong? No matter what, he's got to answer for what he's accused of.
Hey - i think the dad was a terrible father. Dragging your kid out to a war at that age is horrible. And i think he should get his trial as fast as possible - i understand the delays because they couldn't sort out what court would hear the case but enough is enough.
But ... he's not OUR prisoner. And he WAS in a war zone, and is accused of crimes. If it were canada doing this i'd have a much different opinion, but it's not and as long as the americans are giving him a fair trial then we really dont' have much to say.
There's nothing even remotely 'radical' about this - you keep thinking there is but there really isn't. He's been charged with crimes of war by a lawful combatant in a foreign conflict. We did not go to the aid of our boys who were captured in veitnam under an American flag, we have NEVER gone to bat for any of our people who serve in foriegn armies even when that army is on OUR side.
So... this is different.. why? Why do we owe this guy something we've never done for anyone else exactly?
I'm sorry the kid's family was so messed up as to take him - but this really isn't our business.
[updated Thu Sep 25 17:38:53 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 17:38
The Americans charging others with war crimes? That's irony, but not even remotely funny.
Canadians fought in Spain and Vietnam because of their beliefs. They weren't terrorists or criminals. What are you thinking?
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And as far as I can see, the Americans attacked, without provocation, and Afghanis fought back, including, maybe, this child.
What is with you? Was Paul Revere an "enemy combatant?" Don't you understand international law and the the rules of war?
He was 15 years old, for god's sake. Give your Neanderthal head a shake.
[updated Thu Sep 25 17:46:35 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 17:46
Foxer
A crime is a crime, and the americans are within their rights to lay those charges regardless of what you might think of their policy in general.
Heck - if this was ww2 and some american soldier raped a civvie - do you think they shouldn't be charged just because germany was worse?
The kid is accused of killing a person and doing so illegally. That's a crime.
I don't buy all this 'terrorist' stuff - i'll grant you the word gets thrown around far too easily. Terrorist is usually what the big army calls the little army.
But that doesn't change the rules of war. He was either a lawful combatant or he wasn't - and he threw the grenade or he didn't. He's not being charged with 'terrorism'.
However - america DID have provocation to attack - it would be dishonest of you to suggest otherwise - and regardless it's not this kid's country. So - either he was a lawful combatant or not.
And to answer your question - paul revere and the minutemen and all the other 'militia' in the american wars wore colours and fought as lawful combatants. Those who did not were killed as murderers. That has been the law for centuries.
And yes - he's 15. And apperently he killed a man. A medic. Chris Speer - who 2 days before walked into a minefield to rescue afghani children.
He was a husband - and a father. That man's children will have to grow up without a dad now.
That MUST be paid for. I'm sorry - but 15 or 50, if you kill someone without lawful excuse you are going to face justice.
I notice you don't spare any tears for the dead medic or his family. Hell, he wasn't even armed.
[updated Thu Sep 25 17:59:07 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 17:59
Foxer, you're all alone on this, at least among real experts, as opposed to prostitute-like talking heads. He may have fought back against America's invasion. Even if from another country, there's nothing wrong with that.
Grow your mind Foxer. Understand that rigid thinking is bad for you.
[updated Thu Sep 25 18:07:24 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 18:07
Foxer
LOL - really. I've seen a fair number of surveys that say most canadians are happy to leave him where he is :) Fact is you're in the minority, not me.
And i see you still don't have any intelligent argument to put forward, just more insults. I guess even YOU know there's no sense in your argument and it's making you angry :)
If you fight in a war - whether its a 'good' war or a 'bad' war or you're from that country or not - you still have to follow the rules of warfare or you will pay a price if you're caught.
Your brain seems to filter everything that's basic common sense and reason out if it doesn't match your ideology. And your ideology has no basis in logic or common sense.
Again - how old do you think a person should be before you hold them to account for blowing people up with hand grenedes?
[updated Thu Sep 25 19:30:21 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 19:30
Foxer
BTW - just looked up the latest angus reid polls on the subject - only 37 percent of people think he should be repatriated.
[updated Thu Sep 25 19:33:49 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 19:33
So a 15-year old kid shall be detained and tortured for 5+ years. No problems with you. That says it all.
[updated Thu Sep 25 19:34:14 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 19:34
Foxer
You mean a 15 year old who murdered an unarmed medic illegally? Hmmm - not THAT much of a problem :)
Hey - don't go to war if you don't want to pay the price. I don't much approve of 5 years waiting for trial, but that's really not the american's fault, they took it to trial and the judge ruled it was not the right jurisdiction.
Now he'll get his trial, and that's the way it should be.
And again - how old do you think someone has to be before they're held accountable for murdering a father and hero with a hand grenade?
[updated Thu Sep 25 19:53:59 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 19:53
Foxer, you go lower with each passing day. The Americans were the attackers. The kid was defending. How can you call him a murderer?
You are, if I may be so bold, totally delusional.
[updated Thu Sep 25 19:59:36 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 19:59
Foxer
The kid was defending ... well he claims he wasn't, but lets let that slide for right at this second..
A civillian can't 'defend' anything. In a war, combatants can attack and defend, civvies cannot. This is why it is illegal to actually target civillians intentionally. They may be killed by accident, but they don't deliberately try to kill civilian populations. If civillians could shoot back, they'd start to be valid military targets.
The kid was reported to be an illegal combatant. That means he wasn't defending or attacking anything - he was just killing. That is murder. It's the same as shooting a civvie in cold blood is murder.
As the americans moved into the area, the kid decided to throw a grenade at them and kill them. For a civillian to do that, it is no different than if a civillian did that in down town toronto.
That is the law. It is a necessary law to keep civilians as safe as possible in a war.
He may have been too young to know this on his own, but his father bloody well should have and should have explained to him that he was NOT to attack soldiers. Not unless he was a proper soldier and wearing the colours of his side.
That. Is. The. Law. At no time is it lawful or legal for a noncombatant to kill medics. Actually you're not supposed to kill medics at ANY time.
And no, I'm not delusional. I am knowledgeable and rational. It's little surprise to me you have trouble recognizing that tho.
How is this hard for you to understand? If a 15 year old boy in canada killed a person in cold blood, you presumably wouldn't have a big problem with him standing trial for it. This is no different - the army alleges he was a non-combatant and if that is true - then this was murder.
[updated Thu Sep 25 22:14:11 -0400 2008]
25 Sep 22:14
MRM
rsharp - He was not tortured. Ever. He was also not "defending". He is not an Afghan citizen and he is not an Afghan soldier. He is Pakistani - Canadian. He was being arrested at the the time of the incident as a wanted Al Qaida terrorist. So by your rational if a criminal kills a cop in a raid that is self defence. I don't think so.
[updated Fri Sep 26 19:22:40 -0400 2008]
26 Sep 19:22
MRM, Khadr was tortured - he's been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment since Day One.
Oh wait. You mean torture as the Americans have redfined it!
I would think he was defending himself, if in fact he did throw the grenade. It was a war zone, for Pete's sake. Hardly analogous to criminals killing cops.
[updated Sat Sep 27 14:10:38 -0400 2008]
27 Sep 14:10
MRM
rsharp - Yes that does make him a terrorist by every standard of international law. I cannot understand why you just do not get it? It is not a war of aggression and he is not a freedom fighter. He is a terrorist. We cannot bring him home and let him loose because he will do what he has been taught to do his entire life. He will kill you and your family if given the chance even if that means killing himself in the process. I cannot put it any simpler than that
He is also not part of the so called "home team"? remember he was not fighting for the Taliban; he was fighting for Al Qaida. He was not being "attacked" by US forces in a war setting. The US received intelligence about where they were hiding and were raiding them in an effort to capture them. When the raid was over and a medic was patching up some of the wounded terrorists little Omar popped a grenade and killed the medic and his wounded friends. He is not even an Afghan; he is supposed to be a Canadian. We are supposed to be his home team so that makes him a traitor as well as a terrorist.
[updated Fri Sep 26 19:13:06 -0400 2008]
26 Sep 19:13
MRM and Foxer, you defend the detention and denial of the fundamental rights of a Canadian citizen who was 15 years old when he committed his alleged offence. The word is alleged. Remember, innocent until proven guilty? Even though he's been locked up and mistreated like a caged animal for an unbelievable 5-6 years without trial. Habeus corpus, remember?
5-6 years? Have you two no shame? Will you support anything Harper does? And, please, don't come back at me that this was all the Liberals' fault. The Libs have seen their mistake and now want to make amends.
[updated Fri Sep 26 20:26:00 -0400 2008]
26 Sep 20:26
MRM? Foxer? I'm waiting. .
[updated Fri Sep 26 23:16:15 -0400 2008]
26 Sep 23:16
MRM
rsharp - Gee sorry I did not get right on this and you had to wait. Perhaps I should go back and find some of the many posts that you have never answered because I guess you had no answers?
On the issue of Khadr it is not all the Liberals fault. It is all Khadr and his family’s fault. What is this nonsense about supporting whatever Harper Does? The Liberals did it and I do support it, 100%.
If I have to choose protecting society from him or letting him get away with murder, terrorism and treason and in the process turning him loose in Canada, free to inflict himself on unsuspecting innocent victims, guess what I and a vast majority of Canadians will choose? If he valued his freedom and his family valued him, he and they would not have turned to terrorism, murder and treason. You are right about one thing though, his offences are alleged and that is why he is being tried as we speak. But you prefer that we just let him go. If we do I hope that he moves in next door to you.
[updated Sat Sep 27 00:06:26 -0400 2008]
27 Sep 00:06
Nobody's talking about turning Khadr loose. He would get his day in court up here. But a very high percentage of those released from Gitmo back to their home countries have been turned loose, after it was determined there was nothing to hold them on, or that they had already paid their debt to "society," and then some.
By the way, his family is not on trial.
[updated Sat Sep 27 13:38:58 -0400 2008]
27 Sep 13:38
MRM
rsharp - Check your facts. Unlike the UK, Australia and others he would not get his day in court up here. His own lawyer has admitted that for pete's sake. Canadian law does not allow for him to be charged for crimes not committed in Canada. That is why the US will not give him up. The Liberal govt knew that, as does the current govt. So by you advocating that he be returned you are by extension advocating that he be let off scott free for Murder and terrorism not to mention he would be free to do what he has been trained to do since starting school in a Madrassah in Pakistan at the age of three. Kill westerners. But you seem OK with that as long as his rights are not violated.
He was not tortured, he was interrogated using some questionable techniques (one time) but this occurred in 2004. The then Martin Govt was notified of it by CSIS officials and that it may actually violate international and Canadian law but did nothing about it. The use of those techniques (water boarding) ceased after a 2005 court ruling in the US prohibiting them?
It was not a war or battle. The invasion was over eight months before he was captured. They were not fighting coalition forces, they were trying to escape justice. Khadr and the rest of the Al Qaida in Afghanistan were on the run and trying to get out of the country when intelligence surfaced indicating the location of a safe house that they were hiding in.
By the way his father was the one that the US was primarily after in the raid and he was killed in that raid so no need to try him. His mother and the rest of his family refused to visit Omar after his capture because she felt that he had dishonored the family by allowing himself to be captured alive. Nice, there’s nothing quite like a mother’s love. She only started visiting him in 2006 after a visit to Pakistan where I am sure she was briefed on how to play the Western Media and the more naïve members of our society (you may count yourself among the latter).
[updated Sat Sep 27 15:45:29 -0400 2008]
27 Sep 15:45