Video: The slow motion train wreck that is Helena Guergis

The History Channel showed the movie Bonnie and Clyde on the weekend. I'm not sure if the showing was scheduled before the recent drama in the lives of Conservative power-couple Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer, but it did cause me to pause and watch for a bit. Two thoughts occured to me: Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were far more engaging, and it appeared that Clyde let Bonnie do the driving. Maybe that was Rahim's mistake?

Anyway, as even the Conservative punditry lines-up against Guergis and Jaffer, she's inexplicably doing her best to keep the story alive. CTV's Bob Fife reports that Guergis is threatening to sue Air Canada and Charlottetown Airport employees for slander and breach of privacy, for daring to blow the whistle on her behaviour at their "hellhole" of an airport. Behaviour which she to date hasn't denied, and even issued a half-hearted apology for.

I'm no legal expert, but I fail to see much merit in her case. I also find it a somewhat amusing position for Guergis to take, given her flouting of DND regulations in the past. It would also be politically suicidal. This story is already going over like a lead-balloon for the Conservatives, reportedly dragging-down fundraising and leading to calls from within the party for her ouster.

Still, perhaps the two sides can sit down and work something out. Would Guergis be willing to settle for $500?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crappy moments in journalism, CTV powns the odium edition

In a "news story" today covering Stephen Harper's pre-budget smoke-blowing, the "journalists" at CTV slip in this ricidulous and unfounded partisan shot at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

And taking advantage over the euphoria surrounding Canada's record-setting gold medal count in Vancouver, Ignatieff told reporters that he wants Harper to extend funding for the "Own the Podium" initiative for Canadian athletes.

The Liberal leader may be trying to make up for his lack of presence during the broadcast of Canada's thrilling 3-2 win over the United States in men's hockey Sunday.

If you're wondering at home the answer is no, inserting dickish commentary into news reports isn't something they encourage in journalism school. Particularly when it's completely full of crap. All that's missing is the insinuation is hates Canada, is just visiting, and was secretly cheering for Russia the United States.

Because last week, well before Ignatieff decided not to bring his personal photographer to yesterday's game, or bat womens' arms out of the way to maximize his camera time, he had this to say to the Globe and Mail's Gary Mason:

To that end, Mr. Ignatieff told The Globe and Mail that a federal Liberal government would contribute $22-million a year towards OTP - the level of funding it has now - and then challenge the private sector to match that amount. He'd like to see funding top $40-million soon.

"This is bigger than just sports," he said. "One in 10 Canadians is obese. One in four is overweight. Our children are doing less sports now than they did in the 90s. So if you think of this as a pyramid, you have to invest in the elite athletes at the top to get a broad base of people who are turning to sport.

"There are huge health benefits here. You have to make this part of your health policy. I'm not just breathing in the Kool-Aid during an excitable time in Vancouver. I do believe this is a strategic investment we should be making."

So yes, the Liberal proposal to extend OTP funding predates his decision not to crassly exploit yesterday's hockey game. And if you're not current on our present media ownership conglomerates yes, CTV and the Globe are both owned by the same company. So maybe they could give CTV a deal on a subscription or something.

Really though, far be it from me to give lectures on journalism to the network that gave us such investigative features as "which country's athletes are hotter?", "hot tub body shots at the base" and "intern waits in line for seven hours."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Videos) Ignatieff's coalition scrum and Power Play appearance

Here's a few video highlights from Michael Ignatieff's media scrum on Friday where he put the coalition bogeyman to rest:



And here's Ignatieff's appearance on CTV's Power Play with Tom Clark on Monday:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Craig Oliver makes some sense

Looking back on the events of the week, Craig Oliver makes some points about minority parliaments worth considering as we go into the summer break, during a segment on CTV's PowerPlay show.

"The best interests of the country were served. That's a good thing."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reports that reports of Lisa Raitt's death was premature may be premature

All morning the speculation has been will Lisa Raitt resign/be fired for leaving a binder full of secret documents on the Chalk River file at CTV, and not noticing it was missing for a week, or will the Conservatives try to blame it all on some poor staffer (who I'm sure will be rewarded with a nice private sector gig for taking the fall).

Well, unsurprisingly, with accountability being just a buzzword for the Stephen Harper Conservatives, just after lunchtime they opted for door B: let the staffer take the fall. Harper spokesperson (I'm assuming he's on the PMO payroll today) Kory Teneycke went on CTV (hey, why not them?) to break the news:

Well, let me first start by saying that this is obviously a very serious incident. Our government takes the handling of confidential documents very seriously and we have very clear and very firm procedures in place to prevent these sorts of incidents from happening. That being said, an incident obviously did occur where some documents were left at the ctv studio here in Ottawa. And as alt, the prime minister and our office have taken a very careful look at what did occur. It's our assessment that while this was a serious breach, it was not breach by the minister herself. And as such, we expect the minister to continue the good work she's doing on behalf of the government.

(snip)

The minister did offer her resignation if the prime minister felt it appropriate. For her to step down. He obviously did not. And as such, she's staying on. However, I would like to point out that the staff person responsible did offer their resignation and it was accepted.

So, Raitt offered her resignation but Harper said no, some poor staffer resigned instead, and this is different from the Maxime Bernier cause because it just is so leave me alone. And with that, the Conservatives seemed content to ride this thing out.

But then, mere minutes later on that same CTV, reporter Bob Fife reports:

I can report, dan, ctv news has learned that the aide who was walking the plank for the minister is Jasmine McDonell who I think we have a picture of her going in with the minister this morning in from the back way of the house of commons. She's a young aide, press secretary. I can also report sources telling CTV that that briefing document actually was the minister's document. Now, they're going blame this aide for having it. But there's going to be a lot of questions that will be asked here, dan. The minister -- if it was the minister's briefing document, which is what I am told it is, the question would be why wasn't the minister -- why'd the minister ask, hey, where's my briefing document? Why is it missing? In and the same thing would apply to the aides. Any of these documents, they're supposed to be under lock and key because they are marked " and when they are brought out of the office they're supposed to be in a briefcase under lock and key and taken out with somebody watching. When it goes back into the evening it it is supposed to be put back into a safe in the minister's office or at a safe in the minister's home. So there's a lot of unanswered questions here. It's fine and dandy for the prime minister's office to try to have some young 26-year-old walk the plank for this, but the buck stops with the minister.

(snip)

I'm getting this from sources, dan, that i believe to be reliable, who have talked to me in the last little bit. And who say that not only were -- that is the minister's briefing book, but there is essential active commercial information -- sensitive commercial information in that document which we have not reported that would be very advantageous to some of the people bidding on some of our reactors in ontario, and in fact the information that the ontario government would not be very pleased with if it got out. The issue here is the government trying to deflect the blame by blaming some young 26-year-old girl. Other issue, this is we're told the minister's document. And the other factor is sensitive commercial information which ctv has not reported that somebody has to take account for. And it certainly can't be some young kid.

(snip)

The duments that the ctv had and which graham richardson reported on last night were " and they were numbered. And so they are very sensitive documents and these are the kind documents that are traceable. If they're not reported immediately, there should be an automatic trace of what happened those documents. Ctv got these documents late thursday evening. We've had them since tuesday until graham reported on the national last night. So we understand there is an investigation going on now from the privy council office, but every rule in the book was broken as far as I can see in terms of security.

Question period starts in a few minutes and its going to be a doozy. Fife's report kills any chance Teneyck's interview had of ending this thing with the staffer's resignation. This is bigger now, with the commercial aspects, and with the revelation these actually were the minister's own personal briefing books, the PMO and Raitt look like heartless, unprincipled tools for trying to blame this on some young staffer.

What's more, by releasing that Raitt offered her resignation and HARPER refused, this is now bigger than Raitt. Harper gets to wear this now. This whole sorry episode, from the firing of Linda Keen to the complete inaction on the Chalk River file over 18 months to the lack of an isotope backup plan to this pathetic attempt to save the hide of Raitt and not Bernier for the EXACT SAME OFFENSE because he likes Raitt while Bernier was an embarrassment to trying to blame it all on some young kid, it all comes back to the incompetence of this government and Stephen Harper's lack of leadership.

Lisa Raitt's resignation, which is even more necessary now that it was, will be all the more embarassing and painful for this government now because of this pathetic manuvering.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The video CTV (and maybe the Conservatives too) didn't want you to see

Earlier in the day I, and many other bloggers, posted the latest video offering from GritGirl, called Harper's Friday the 13th. It quickly was pulled offline by YouTube however, with a message the video was removed because of a copyright claim by CTV/Bell Globe Media, as the video used a clip from CTV's coverage of a recent Stephen Harper speech.

One wonders if perhaps Conservative Senator Mike Duffy fired up the 'ol BlackBerry from the Senate floor and fired off a PIN to his old friends at the network.

Anyway, they should have known better than to think they could keep theGritGirl down. She has replaced the CTV clip and is back online with the video that CTV, and I'd bet their friends in the Conservative Party as well, didn't want you to see:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Power Play

Liberal interim leader Michael Ignatieff was the first guest today on the debut edition of Power Play, hosted by Tom Clark, the successor to Mike Duffy Live. Topics of discussion included the budget, equalization, the Liberal Newfoundland MPs, himself, his goals, power, and the NY Times piece over the weekend.



Speaking of the budget, the Liberal amendment passed tonight. Here's a partial transcript of Ignatieff's scrum comments after the vote:

THE FEDERATION CALCULATES RESOURCE REVENUES. IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE, BUT ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, BOOM, OUT OF THE CLEAR, BLUE SKY, NEWFOUNDLAND WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. INTO THE FEDERAL TRANSFERS THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE, AND THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE TODAY THAT THAT'S ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS OVER THREE YEARS. I SAID TO THE PRIME MINISTER, YOU CAN RUN A FEDERATION THIS WAY. UNILATERAL WITHOUT WARNING, CHANGES. IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUDGET. IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAN AND IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RUN A FEDERATION PROPERLY. I SAID WOULD YOU PUSH THE PAUSE BUTTON ON THOSE CHANGES? AND RETHINK HIS APPROACH TO GET GREATER NATIONAL UNITY IN A TIME OF CRISIS, AND HE SAID NO. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

Harper said no. Well, colour me surprised. Why would he say yes, exactly? Harper wants to stick it to Danny Williams for obvious and personal reasons, he has calculated we're not prepared to go to the mat over this, and he's not particularly inclined to help out out Newfoundland Liberal MPs. All that's left is to let our Newfoundland MPs vote as they wish, and hold it up as an example of how free and open of differing opinion and regional concerns the Liberal caucus is, vis a vis the Conservatives.

We continue to push for changes on equalization as part of our wider push around making parliament work and giving the Conservatives a chance to succeed or fail. And then if they don't correct this we roll in into out wider messaging when we do pull the plug on Harper, as a time and on issues of our own choosing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Speaking of CTV and Dion...

...and Robert Hurst and what not, I thought I'd pass along this article from The Canadian Journalism Project that passed through my inbox this morning. While it misses a number of relevant points in my view, it does offer some more insights into CTV's side of the whole drama. Incidentally, the whole affair has generated quite the debate in journalism circles.

Behind the scenes at CTV: the Dion interview

Here’s the scenario: You are in charge of a television newsroom near the end of a tough, close election campaign. Your six o’clock host heads downtown for a late-afternoon, live-to-tape interview with one of the major party leaders. You’re a bit concerned about whether he’ll be back in time for the 5 pm newsbreak, but otherwise it’s a straightforward shoot.

Tape rolls, and said leader – whose first language is not your program’s – finds the first question confusing and asks to start again. As the two cameras keep rolling the host agrees, but then it happens again. This time, the leader’s aide jumps in, trying to help. A third time, the guest starts to laugh. The fourth take is fine.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dear Craig Oliver

Dear Craig Oliver,

In a Web column the other day, you wrote the following:

However, let's accept Mr. Dion at his word -- that the problem was a difficulty he has with comprehension as a result of some hearing issue. It is a painful thing to say but is he then fit for the highest office in the land if he cannot follow a detailed conversation in English in which great decisions may have to be made?

I'm not sure if anyone has answered your question yet Craig, but the answer is yes, he absolutely is fit for the highest office in the land, even if his English as a second language skills are less than perfect, and even if he has “some hearing issue” as you so sensitively put it.

Just what, Mr. Oliver, are you suggesting could occur if someone with less than perfect English skills, or an aversion to really really bad grammar, becomes Prime Minister? Are you worried that he might mistake “The Russians are invited” for “The Russians are invaded” and he’ll accidentally nuke Moscow or something? Because if that’s the case, you’ll be relieved to know Canada doesn’t posses nuclear weapons. Even if we did have nukes though, here’s how that one would play out:

Aide: Prime Minister Dion, the Russians are invited to Canada.
PM: The Russians are invading Canada? Zut alors! Mon dieux! Are you serious?
Aide: Invading? No, no sir. They’re invited. You know, for a state dinner.
PM: Oh, ok, phew. That’s great. Make sure you get that Alberta vodka I like.

See, no biggie.

Or are you worried that he’ll be presiding over a cabinet meeting and we’ll accidentally sell Vancouver Island to the Americans or invade Iraq because of some unfortunate language issue? Really Craig, exactly how could less than perfect English impact “great decisions” he would have to make as Prime Minister? I assure you, while I too have some grammar issues now and again, my English is pretty dammed good and I have no idea what the heck you’re talking about.

What I’m getting from your column is that unless you have pitch-perfect English (Oxford accent optional, I trust?) you can’t hope to aspire to the highest office in our land (next to the GG). This would, by default, seem to disqualify anyone for whom English is not their first language. Sorry Quebec, and every multi-cultural community across the land. I suppose we just got lucky with Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Louis St. Laurent. I’ll give you Wilfrid Laurier, total disaster that guy. How we managed to get the Naval Bill through given his trouble with subordinate clauses, I have no idea.

Maybe you’re right though, Mr. Oliver. Perhaps Canadians are unwilling to accept a man that is honest, sincere, humble and smart as the leader of their country if he has trouble with different tenses in his second language. I hope not though, because I don’t like the sound of that kind of Canada.

Perhaps we’ve had different life experiences. I live in Scarborough, a place where minorities are actually the majority. And I actually I think you’re selling Canada short, because your Canada doesn’t seem to be the Canada that I know. The Canada I know is a nation that takes pride in its multicultural dynamic, that welcomes immigrants from around the world, many of them from non-English speaking countries, and that welcomes everyone to make a contribution to public life. Is it really fair to tell a Canadian whose first language is Greek, or Spanish, or Chinese or Hindi, that sure, you can enter public life, but we’ll only let you rise so far?

Perhaps that wasn’t the message you were trying to get across with your column, Mr. Oliver. If that’s the case, I’d be perfectly willing to let you try to write it again. I promise not to hold the first one against you.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What CTV didn't tell you about Scott Newark

On CTV's Question Period program this afternoon, Craig Oliver moderated a discussion on Omar Kadhar and his ongoing “trial” in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by a U.S. Military court. Discussing the situation were Khadr's U.S. Navy JAG lawyer, Lieutenant Commander William Kuebler arguing for, naturally, the pro-Khadr side. And to argue the opposing viewpoint there was one Scott Newark.

Here's how Craig Oliver introduced Scott Newark:

...a former crown prosecutor and now a security analyst.

Both of those things are true. But there's a lot that CTV didn't bother to tell you about Newark's credentials that certainly seem germane to the discussion, and his objectivity.

For example, in February of 2006, Newark joined the office of the Conservative Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Stockwell Day, as senior policy advisor. He served in the position for three months before joining the famed “revolving door” and going back to his consulting group, Northgate Group, just in time to begin work on a $312,400 contract awarded by Day's department. In fact, Newark was still working for Day when the bidding closed on the contract.

And how did Newark get around the code that “prohibits a public office holder from accepting employment for one year from a firm ''with which they had direct and significant official dealings'' with during the year before they left public office”? Easier than you might think:

But Newark said he avoided contravening the code by simply declining to sign government papers that would have made him a public office holder during his three-month contract as an adviser to Day.

The code defines a public office holder as ''a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state.''

Newark refused to specify exactly his services to the ministers while under contract as an adviser.

Now that's a helluva loophole in the Conservatives' vaunted Accountability Act. Just don't sign the papers, and refuse to say what you did. Problem solved.

That's just Newark's recent history though, and his strong and ongoing ties to the Conservative government. Before his stint in Day's office one of his past positions was as executive director of the Canadian Police Association. In an essay he wrote in that position for Alberta Report in January 1998, here's what he had to say about charter rights. Somewhat germane, given that much of the discussion was about the rights of a Canadian citizen, Omar Kadhar:

Anything effective in law enforcement will inevitably be forbidden under the Charter [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. As we always say, the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges. This year the Supreme Court decreed, on the authority of the Charter, that the provinces must give their judges pay raises.

[Judicial activism and judge-made law] What we have now in Canada is a supposedly enlightened despotism--rule by people who think they know so much better than everybody else. Well, no thanks. I'm in favour of anything that brings [judges] back under the rule of law--public reviews of candidates, public petitions to force performance reviews of sitting judges, and Section 33 [the "notwithstanding clause"]--every time they do something crazy.

Scott Newark is much more than a “security expert”, Mr. Oliver. And you'll forgive me if I don't give much credence to the views on the Khadr case and his rights as a Canadian citizen of a guy who thinks the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fundamental change...to media narratives

Was just flipping through the channels and CTV's Craig Oliver was on Newsnet, talking about the year ahead in federal politics. He was also trying his best, unsurprisingly, to minimize recent polls that have shown the Conservatives and Liberals neck in neck.

Oliver cautioned people from reading too much into the poll numbers, saying Canadians aren't ready to throw-out the Harper government yet, and we shouldn't read any kind of “fundamental change” from just a few polls.

The fact is these polls aren't showing anything new. The media has just been slow to recognize the consistent numbers, since they were busy for most of the year trying to squeeze everything into their “Conservatives inching towards majority” narrative.

No one is saying Canadians are ready to toss Harper out, I think Oliver is being deliberately obtuse there. But the fact is, going back to the last election, the Conservatives have failed consistently to build and hold a substantial lead, despite all the advantages of incumbency and the public purse. While Liberal numbers have, yes, been aggravatingly and disappointingly stagnant, Conservative numbers have yo-yo'd, with any lead more than the margin short-lived.

Indeed, numbers for all the parties have been relatively stagnant since the last election, with the possible exception of the Greens. Canadians aren't enamored with Harper, but he hasn't burned the place down yet and the situation the country is good, so he gets the incumbents' bump and a short leash. The Dion Liberals have failed to inspire, Canadians are taking a wait and see. And the Layton NDP has also failed to gain any ground, despite (or because of?) their attack the Liberals first policy.

The trend Oliver and his colleagues don't seem to have recognized is that Canadians aren't particularly excited about any of their options, and don't much care either. And, barring something unforeseen, we'll continue to see these same “none of the above” numbers until the next election. Once the campaign starts, all bets will be off.

P.S. Oliver now says not forcing an election last fall was “the best decision Dion ever made.” That's nice Craig. I won't go back and check what you were saying about that decision at the time...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

CTV omits global warming/environment from top stories list

I'm back in the Comox Valley, B.C. for the the holidays after managing to escape the East before the storm hit. I did a semi-mileage run on the way out, flying from Buffalo through Philadelphia, Baltimore, Phoenix and Vancouver to ensure I'd have enough miles to re qualify for Aeroplan Elite with Air Canada next year. Because I need my Maple Leaf Lounge. Amazingly, every leg went off without a hitch (really tasty steak sandwich in Phoenix) until my Vancouver to Comox leg, which was delayed four hours by strong winds on Vancouver Island.

I'm here now though, and I was watching CTV Newsnet this morning. 'Tis the season for year-end list stories, and CTV is early out of the gate with its list of the top Canadian news stories, as follows:

1. The high-flying loonie

2. Canadian casualties in Afghanistan

3. Media baron Conrad Black's legal saga

4. Chinese product recalls

5. The deadly, and controversial, use of tasers

6. The trial and conviction of Robert Pickton

7. The hunt for Canadian pedophiles in Thailand

8. RCMP shootings

9. Multiple births -- sextuplets, quadruplets -- recorded this year

10. The scandal surrounding former prime minister Brian Mulroney

I'd take issue with at least one of these choices, but first to one of the stories omitted. The Newsnet anchor had CTV News president Robert Hurst on to discuss the list, and she (I think rightly) gave him a hard time about the multiple births one.

More interesting though was when she asked why the environment/global warming wasn't on the list. It was certainly a big story this year, from Conservative fumbling on the file to Bali and the UN conference to Al Gore's Nobel prize and the rise of the Green Party. Hurst, however, said CTV editors were “skeptical of the importance of global warming” as an issue on the top ten list.

If we were just talking the size of the news made as criteria I'd cut Hurst some slack, although I'd still disagree with him. But he made the criteria importance. And yet, and here's where I take issue with the list, he included the Conrad Black trial?? Generated lots of coverage? Yes. Important story? Hells no. And more important than climate change? Not a chance.

I continue to be surprised by the Canadian media's obsession with all things Conrad. As a journalist myself I naturally have mild interest, as this is a guy that for better or worse largely helped to reshape the industry in which I work, but my interest isn't enough to warrant the media orgy that has surrounded the trial. I'm of the firm belief though that average, non-journalist Canadian doesn't give a crap about Conrad and Babs. It's a case of the media's own interests driving their coverage, and not the public's.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reality check: Mike Duffy parrots Conservative talking points, forgets he's a "journalist"

I’m watching the supper-hour newscast here on the Toronto CTV affiliate, and every evening the anchor does a live chat with Mike Duffy from Ottawa for an update on the day’s events on Parliament Hill. Duffy just spewed a pile of crap so odious I had to hit rewind on the PVR to watch it again, then once more to transcribe the exchange.

The topic was the Decivin’ Steven’s rejection today of a call form the McGuinty Liberal government in Ontario for a ban on hand guns. Rather that present all sides of the issue, Duffy launched into a one-sided, unchallenged recitation of the Conservative talking points on the issue (probably straight from Sandra Buckler to his famed BlackBerry) and flat-out misrepresented, if not worse, the facts of the issue and the Liberal position. And running through it all was an strong sense of smugness and superiority from the Duffster.

First, here’s the complete exchange:

Anchor: Michael, I have to tell you, this seems like a no-brainer to many people in Toronto, especially in the wake of the Jordan Manners shooting. But the Federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario’s call for an all-out ban on handguns.

Duffy: And the reason is it’s chicken-soup legislation. I.E., it’s a law you can pass and it makes everyone feel good but, like chicken soup, it really doesn’t cure the cold. The federal government is saying they looked at this…Paul Martin tried this one during the last election campaign and it smacked of desperation. The Tories here tell me that Dalton McGuinty, with an election coming-up here October 10^th, is trying the same thing as a way to say don’t blame me, blame the federal government for gun violence in Toronto. What the federal Tories are saying is that a total ban would just be so huge, so difficult, it would take up so much resources trying to go after every gun collector and target shooter why don’t we just concentrate on gun violence among gangs, get the guns we an get now that are illegal out there. Let’s bring in mandatory prison terms for gun crimes. The Liberals are stalling and are opposed to it. The New Democrats and Conservatives voted in favour of it. So, at the end of the day, it’s time for a little (smugly fake-clears throat) reality check. Everybody hates guns. One politician saying blame the other doesn’t solve the problem. What solves the problem is more police putting more people in handcuffs and saying no to the hug-a-thug theory.

What a steaming pile of crap. You’d almost think Buckler had written the script for him, as a Blogging Tory couldn’t have done better. No ‘well this is one side and this is the other side’ but just a straight Con propaganda regurgitation.

First of all, Duffy claims this is “chicken soup legislation” which would seem to be his condescending way of saying a hand gun ban wouldn’t be effective. Stockwell Day made this same point today (same talking points no doubt) although he made it more eloquently than the Duffman:

Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase.

"In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns - the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions - in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.

Unfortunately, Day was flat wrong. Rather than swallowing and regurgitating the Con talking-point like Duffy, the journalists at CP did some “journalism” as the kids like to call it and reported this (Scott's on this too):

Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.

There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office. Injuries related to gun crimes also fell while fatalities rose slightly.

Police in London also reported an 11 per cent decrease in gun crime in the metropolitan London area during the same period.

Opps. You see, that’s the value of research Duffster. You must have some young interns on staff for that, right?

Then there’s Duffy’s ascertain that the Liberals are stalling on anti-crime legislation. Again, Duffy parrots an oft-repeated Con talking point unchallenged. Again, the talking point is full of crap. I don’t know if Duffy can remember as far back as, say, October, but if so he’d remember the Liberals offered to fast track more than half of the Conservative government’s crime fighting legislation. Yes, fast-track it. As in pass it quickly.

And how did Crime-fightin’ Decivin’ Steven respond to the offer? He said no thanks. As Globe columnist John Ibbitson explained, having the ‘soft on crime’ club to beat the Liberals with is more important to Harper than actually being, you know, tough on crime:

Then why do it? So Prime Minister Stephen Harper can turn the defeated bills into a wedge issue in the next election. "You see?" he will say. "This is the price we pay for a minority government. The Conservatives want criminals doing real time, rather than lounging around under house arrest. We want to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, and we want to protect people of faith from being compelled to act against their principles.

"But the opposition parties are more worried about the rights of criminals and pleadings of lawyers than they are about your protection. That is why we need a majority government."

The Liberals tried again in March, offering to pass four crime bills (C-18 (DNA Identification), C-22 (Age of Consent), C-23 (Criminal Procedure) and C-35 (Reverse Onus in Bail Hearings)) through the HoC in one day. The Con response? The used procedural measures to stall their own legislation! Yes Michael, the CONSERVATIVES stalled their own crime bills.

What’s more, to Duffy’s erroneous claim the Liberals are opposed to getting tough on gun crime and tough sentences, here’s what the Liberal platform has to say on the topic (I’m sure the OLO would be happy to hand-deliver him a copy) with some key parts bolded:

Tougher penalties – A Liberal government will re-introduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes. These reforms will also prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases where there was serious personal injury, including all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; and organized crime-related offences.

Once again Michael, doing research beyond the Con talking points can be quite conducive to not only balanced reporting, but accurate reporting. Which is supposed to be the general idea.

And finally, what the hell was this “hug-a-thug” BS about Michael? How in the heck is banding handguns the equivalent to hugging criminals? I mean, seriously man?

I have to admit to not being a regular viewer of Mike Duffy Live. Is he always this full of crap, or did I just catch him on a bad day or something?

UPDATE: As Olaf mentions in the comments, Bob Tarantino has dug into the report cited in the CP piece on UK gun crime and found that while technically accurate, CP was selectivly misleading because overall, since the UK ban the stats have actually come up overall, although down in the period cited. So, bad CP, and bad me for taking CP at faith value. Let's hope the Brits have turned things around and numbers will continue their recent downward trend. Is the recent downward trend ban related? I dunno. Warren (the other Warren) has also examined the UK numbers and has some more nuanced thoughts.

My crow eaten and faith in CP shaken, back to selective and misleading stats. Some of the commenters over at Scott's find it quite selective that Stock specifically mentioned the UK and not, say Japan and Australia which they say also have bans and showed a drop. Are they right? I wouldn't put it past Stock but I don't know, and it's Friday night so I'm going to watch South Park instead of hitting Google.

Let me sign-off though by saying this, and I'm getting off my original theme of the Duffman here. But I'm sure no one is saying bans increase gun crime. You could read Stock that way, but I don't think that's what he was going for. I think the point he and most on his side would make would be that a ban would be ineffective. The veracity of that contention is unproven, barring a wider statistical sample of countries other than Stock's well-chosen UK example.

But even if a ban only leads to a minor decrease in gun crime, or serves to stem the rate of increase, isn't that a good thing. It's not an either/or situation as Duffy tries to make it out to be. We can both get tough on crime AND ban handguns. We can do both. Why not do everything we can to lower gun violence. Won't every bit help?

While Day and hand gun proponents, or ban opponents, whatever you want to call them, will argue a ban won't make a major difference, I don't think that's the real motivation for their opposition. For many of them, it's just that they like guns. They like the gun culture. They think owning a gun will make them more safe, they want it for protection.

And I don't buy that. I grew-up in the semi-rural West, and unlike many Liberals I'm willing to meet the right halfway on gun control. I understand the case for long-guns for hunting and pest control, the Liberal policy on the registry went too far in that regard. I worked on campaigns in B.C. where we made that point, and promised if elected to bring that view to the caucus table.

But you're not going to sell me on handguns. You don't shoot deer with a handgun. You shoot people with a handgun. So, not using any statistics, tell me again why we shouldn't ban handguns?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers