Listening to some conservatives you would think the case against Gun Registry was open and shut: it does no good at all full stop.

However is the evidence consistent with such a stance? Hardly. Judge for yourself.

The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mh-sm/pdf/suicid_e.pdf" title="http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mh-sm/pdf/suicid_e.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mh...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06 -2/rr06-2.pdf" title="http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06 -2/rr06-2.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/p...

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/perhlth66a.htm?sdi=suicide" title="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/perhlth66a.htm?sdi=suicide" target="_blank"http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/c...

The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.

The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F020 9XIE/2004000/t001_en.htm" title="http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F020 9XIE/2004000/t001_en.htm" target="_blank"http://www.statcan.ca/english... There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.

The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06 -2/rr06-2.pdf" title="http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2006/rr06 -2/rr06-2.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/p...

The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002 -XIE/85-002-XIE2006006.pdf" title="http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002 -XIE/85-002-XIE2006006.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.statcan.ca/english... The number of homicides as a percentage of the number attempted homicides has increased. http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796- B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE0 9F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCan ada2004.pdf" title="http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796- B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE0 9F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCan ada2004.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.... In other words, the attempted homicide rate has fallen even further than the homicide rate.

It speaks volumes about the blogging torries that this tool is one of their most read bloggers. Kate McMillan: "The Nazis Didn't Carry Out The Holocaust. The German state did that."

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008328.html" title="http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008328.html" target="_blank"http://www.smalldeadanimals.c...

Most people would say that if someone of sound mind deliberately runs over innocent person and kills them that they are guilty of vehicular homicide, but not Kate. According to Kate, the fault lies with the car and the car alone.

Yes sir conservatives are all about taking personal responsibility.

Perhaps we can make partial sense of what Kate said. Maybe she was saying that there were insufficient constitutional safeguards in Germany at the time and no tradition of respect for the rule of law.

Conservatives are all about constitutional safeguards and needless to say have a long history of supporting an independent judiciary. “It’s the stupid charter” “"Well, the heck with the courts." “Activist judges” "If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be for us conservatives out there a way to put checks and balances in there."

Leaving Quarda aside, the Liberals are in real trouble in BC. North Vancouver, Richmond, Newton North Delta are all on the razor's edge, Keith Martin will be in for a fight in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca and West Vancouver is as good as gone. If the election was held today I say the Liberals would loose 4 of the aforementioned 5. I think Martin would hold onto his seat. One problem is Dion's English. His accent is strong and his ability to express himself in English is not nearly what it is in French and well that does seem to be a problem in Toronto it certainly is here. Another problem is that Vancouver is a fiscally conservative city, with a very fiscally conservative media. This is not a town of Red Tories. This is not Toronto. There is no Toronto Star. There is the Vancouver Sun and the Fraser Institute. Luckily for the Liberals it is also socially liberal city. By and large SSM played very well here and there is strong support for drug reform of all kinds. If the Liberals are serious about holding onto what they have in BC and perhaps even picking up a seat or two, they need to develop some policies that will appeal to libertarians. Right now the cupboard is bare.

The environment, i.e., the issue of global warming, will not determine the next election. The Conservatives have muddied the waters, the Liberal track record is poor, and quite frankly this is not the burning issue that many make it out to be. The changes are gradual enough and the effects not injurious in the way an economic downturn or health care cuts would be. The very notion of Dion building a platform around the issue of global warming, especially when he will not consider anything as meaty and concert as a carbon tax, is patently absurd.

The Liberals need to create a so called “wedge issue”, a la SSM by proposing legislation that will divide the public. (To describe SSM as a wedge issue prior to 2003 is to abuse the term. Sure there was mixed feelings about SSM prior to the 2003 Ontario Court decision, but it was hardly on the political radar the way it was after Chrétien’s decision not to challenge the ruling.) In the past I have mentioned two such possible wedge issues, viz., marijuana legalization and legalized euthanasia and have said the former has far more potential, but is also much more dangerous. A carbon tax would also fit the bill.

The other thing the Liberals need to do is they need to get back to their socially democratic roots based on a strong commitment to universality. The type of small potatoes grab bag hopelessly diffuse pc special interest liberalism now on offer is uninspiring to say the least. The Liberals need to commit to two or three policies that would further the cause of social democracy in Canada and be an expression of the party’s renewed commitment to universality. In the past I suggested that Liberals commit to giving all Canadians, as is the norm throughout the rest of the Western world, a minimum of 4 weeks of vacation a year. I also recommended that they propose including dental care as part of heath care and introducing a pharmacare program, a la what is available in Britain. To make the latter two seem more economically palatable the Liberals could propose raising the GST back up to 7%. Finally, the Liberals could again revisit the issue of Child Care. The problem is they fumbled the ball the last time around and they seem unwilling to commit to a truly universal system. Peace meal childcare does not address the problem and so does not stand any hope of being a political winner.

Dion has been an unmediated disaster. The party has not moved in the polls since he began as leader and the fundraising numbers are dire. Worse, there is no reason to believe that things will get any better. His English still causes him trouble, he is not getting any more charismatic and the only issue he had a chance to fight the next election on and win, viz., Afghanistan, he chose to punt on. He leads a party that is scared of its own shadow and which had long ago “triangulated&rdquo ; its way in ideological no man’s land. Just what does the Liberal party stand for? The Liberals do not even talk a good game anymore.

What little direction Dion has given the party has not been good. There are plenty of remnants of the Martin era. However, nothing remains of Trudeau’s commitment to universality and federalism and Dion seems more willing to embrace “social taboos” than to challenge them. In its place Dion has decided to pursue ill advised alliances with the Green Party and aboriginal nationalists, and has given plenty of lip service to Martin’s hair brained Atlantic Accord. Once a party that championed a united pluralistic Canada, the Liberal party has become the dupe of provincial and special interest groups who have no regard whatsoever with the national interest. Dion does have his principles though. He may not have any qualms about ruining forever what is left of the Liberal brand, but he is willing to implement one of the most loathed tools in the traditional liberal arsenal, viz. affirmative action, to achieve a higher number of female candidates at the expense the party’s already fractured unity.

Only a miracle and a renewed commitment to social democracy, universality and full blooded social liberalism can save the Liberals now.