A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

November 05, 2007

No Gun, No Funeral, No Patron -- Michael Bryant ousted as Attorney General

Michael Bryant is no longer the Attorney General of Ontario. Not suprisingly, he is no longer interested in the No Gun No Funeral crusade. It really doesn't fit his career plans, I guess.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 4 kb.

September 10, 2007

All quiet at Michael Bryant's No Gun No Funeral

Glancing over at Michael Bryant's No Gun No Funeral website, I see things are quiet. They've been quiet for quite some time.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:46 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

September 01, 2007

Targeting guns instead of criminals

In Britain, we have an interesting case study of what happens when guns become the focus of police efforts instead of the criminals themselves. The results are obvious in hindsight, but are also so absurd that perhaps the British can be forgiven for not realizing what would happen.

But in Canada, we have no such excuse, since we can study the British experience and draw lessons from it.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:58 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 967 words, total size 7 kb.

1 One unfortunate result of the recent gun violence is the re-emergence of the politically attractive idea of blaming inanimate objects - guns- for the wilful acts of criminals. This is an attractive strategy because it's emotionally appealing to an upset public and spares politicians the difficult task of going after organized crime or deranged criminals. The policy has the further advantage of outraging law-abiding gun owners, who know perfectly well that inanimate objects donÂ’t cause violence. This makes a blatently political manoeuver seem bold and somehow Â“heroicÂ”. Most importantly, attention can be drawn away from expensive, difficult to address problems, such as organized crime, criminal subcultures and adequate opportunities for our ongoing flood of immigrants with a politically correct Â“morality crusadeÂ” against guns. The $380,000 contract the Liberal government gave Kim Doran (an employee of the Liberal Party) to represent the Coalition for Gun Control is a measure of how appealing this strategy was to the Liberals. Ms. Doran used the money to lobby the federal Solicitor General, Treasury Board and Privy Council in support of the government's own policies. A move that enabled them to claim that a government funded lobby group, lobbying the government on the governmentÂ’s behalf was a Â“grass rootsÂ” organization representing the Â“majority of CanadiansÂ”.

Posted by: Bruce at September 01, 2007 11:22 AM (+fvpG)

2 Excellent point but I'll take the argument one step further if you do not mind. By making guns a de facto criminal and ignoring the human criminals it allows governments to avoid dealing with the 'root' causes, the reasons why people become part of gangs and engage in violence to begin with. Instead, the government can focus on providing its unwitting supporters with numbers of guns seized as a way to fool them into believing that their justice system is being effective and that criminals are being taken off the street. This is why I never understood the NDP's irrational support for tough-on-guns (as opposed to criminals who use guns) legislation. Even if gun laws were effective in removing guns from criminals they do not remove the criminals from the streets or prevent others from becoming criminals. What has been omitted in this entire debate is how we can prevent people from becoming criminals and use guns in the first place. Gun laws that punish people for using guns in crimes allow just retribution and punishment, which is important. But how can we stop young adults from engaging in such crimes to begin with? I'm not a firm believer in the 'more basketball courts' method since that also fails to address the appeal of gang life. Any thoughts?

Posted by: southernontarioan at September 01, 2007 12:18 PM (x+pNy)

3 'root causes' is just another spin word to give the governments an out to really dealing with the 'root cause' of crime--that being criminals. Without criminals there would be no crime--no criminals, no crimes!? The real failure is with the Injustice System. They fail to make crime the responsibility of the criminal. Defence lawyers always find an excuse for the criminal committing the crime, and the soft on crime judges are swayed by the arguments. Plea barganing is a game and we, the citizen, are again viewed as expendable. It is all about accountability. Let the punishment fit the crime and maybe crime would not be the glamorous life we have made it seem. Let jail be punishment, not a vacation(barbeques, movies, massages, fashion shows, etc). Make the judges, lawyers, and parole boards responsible for their early release of criminals that re-offend. Sadly, 'rehabilitation' of the criminal takes precedence over the safety and well being of the victim that we are about to become. When honest citizens are referred to by Corrections Canada as 'non-convicted citizens' we know their impression of us. And the real bottom line is that, as noted in the first posting, there is money in them thar criminals, and governments, especially the Liberals, know how to milk it for all it is worth. I don't know of one person that would be against building more jails to house these despicable criminals. Building one or two on Hans Island would solve two problems--get the criminals away from honest citizens, and reinforce Canada's sovereignty to that island. After all, criminals must have a use somewhere, just not on our streets in our communities reoffending again and again.

Posted by: George at September 01, 2007 01:37 PM (o+3o+)

4 If your are a career criminal it would make good sense to hide a bunch of guns somewhere with no link to yourself. If the cops bust you for something, you rat out the guns as belonging to some fictional shadowy aquaintance. It's a easy get out of jail free card.

Posted by: Stan at September 01, 2007 03:41 PM (1Bcu2)

5 The main reason people become criminals is because of training and encouragement by other criminals. There is a root cause, and that's what it is. An improved criminal justice system will help not only by providing disincentives and by (through prison) stopping people from committing further crimes, but also by removing the coaches from the street.

Posted by: LTEC at September 01, 2007 08:47 PM (naUDf)

6 They will also prefer easy targets over difficult ones, everything else being equal. Yes. Criminals (those who take away other people's life and property by force or fraud) are hard to fight. They're tough and heartless. Non-criminals (those who do not take away others' life and property) are rather easy to push over, as long as (a) you've disarmed them, and (b) they've been conditioned from birth to automatically bow down before those wearing fancy hats and shiny badges and carrying impressive-looking diplomas. That's why government and mobs are like the heads and tails of the same coin. They define and support each other's existence and they both live off the same marks. Think of what's happened between the Mob and the government from 1927-2007. The Mob lived off liquor, gambling and prostitution rackets. The government since then has taken over liquor and gambling, but has left them the prostitution racket and given them the gift of narcotics prohibition (a gift that keeps on giving, in the form of thousands of jobs for cops, prison guards, lawyers, etc.) Both of them run protection rackets - though in this regard one of them is the clear champion, with enormous horizontal and vertical reach across various interlocking organizations and jurisdictions. But even though they are far and away bigger and more powerful than the Mob, governments will never get rid of them. They need the Mob, terrorists, rogue states, etc. If they didn't exist, they would have to invent them. Because without them, how would they scare you into obedience?

Posted by: at September 02, 2007 12:13 AM (tgNL5)

7 Sadly, 'rehabilitation' of the criminal takes precedence over the safety and well being of the victim that we are about to become. Most of what the government does is senseless. It is absurd to claim that people need help from some powerful outside entity to teach their children ABCs, to find them a job, to save their money for old age, and to pay their doctors' bills. They take the power to do these things from you by claiming that far from being simple, obvious tasks which *anyone* could do, in fact these functions require exotic, specialized knowledge which only the *elite* possess. The same reasoning (so-called) is applied to justice. *Anybody* could say that a vicious murderer should be executed or put away for life. That's the obvious answer. But to preserve the awe and mystery (and juicy paycheques) of the elites, they must pretend that some arcane, intellectual process has determined that common sense is wrong, and that the right answer is to *coddle* criminals. Run your finger down the blue pages of the phone book, try to figure out what all those infinitely varied government departments are up to, and it all adds up to the same thing: an absurd and nonsensical (but very lucrative) con-job.

Posted by: at September 02, 2007 12:31 AM (tgNL5)

8 Poster at 12:31--absoultely correct. The carnage left against the innocent by criminals is almost indistingusable from the carnage left by the governments. The criminal takes our goods, and sometimes our lives, while the government takes both with impunity and 'legally'--after they have legislated their right to do so. Voting is just another way of deciding which criminal organization gets first crack at us. At least we know what the criminal will do, but government is so far reaching that we have no concept of the crimes they will commit against us for 'our own good'. Government=con job--well said. I wonder why we are so pliable though? Could it be the governments, while in charge of 'eduction' have created human putty?

Posted by: George at September 02, 2007 06:36 AM (sT/QL)

9 "A handgun in the possession of a responsible and law-abiding private citizen is not the tool of criminals." Herein lies the core of the matter, Steve. For the modern Left there is no such thing as a "responsible and law-abiding private citizen". People are stupid and must be controlled. The thinking goes that human beings are all equally likely to go off the rails should the circumstances arise. The circumstance which turns "normal" people into killers is the presence of a gun. The gun bestows the power and the opportunity to kill and rob, and given the opportunity most people will go ahead and do that. If you believe that, then rooting out inanimate objects is completely sensible. If you believe that, many things become sensible. A CCTV camera on every street light, cars that report traffic violations themselves, short prison sentences (because it wasn't really their fault, eh?), regulations on every little thing to make SURE the people do what they are supposed to do. I hear there is a plan afoot to ban the sale of knives that come to a point to prevent stabbings. This is why Lefties freak out whenever some crazy Conservative type suggests lowering taxes, repealing regulations or shrinking government. Without the firm hand of Authority on their necks, the average shmoe will run amok and civilization will crumble. You can't argue with that. You have to defeat it at the ballot box.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 03, 2007 09:12 AM (VSDF/)

10 Damn I was hoping some utopian leftoid would post some worn out anti-gun cliche's so I could label them a "reality denier". BTW Good post Bruce.

Posted by: Bill at September 03, 2007 06:54 PM (INHn8)

11 I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f

Posted by: 2012 lebron 9 at December 03, 2012 12:14 PM (ixT+/)

12 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.MercurialVaporIXstore.com

Posted by: elite lebron james 9 galaxy at December 03, 2012 02:39 PM (XeOAH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 31, 2007

The twisted revolver at No Gun No Funeral

I am intrigued by the imagery used by the No Gun No Funeral website. It seems completely at odds with what Attorney General Michael Bryant's group wants to accomplish.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:54 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 791 words, total size 6 kb.

1 ...what a lot of gun owners insist needs to be done, and that is to increase the capacity of Canadian border control officers to stop American guns, purchased easily and legally in the United States, from crossing the border into Canada,... Or, we could really go way out there into fringe territory and actually punish people who commit murders. As long as I'm suggesting something so radical, I'll go one further and suggest punishing people who kill with knives and axes and cars and pool balls wrapped in a sock and even with their bare hands. The last time I checked, their victims wind up just as dead and (contrary to what that idiot Miller hinted at recently) their families grieve every bit as much. Perhaps if murdering someone would result in a very long -possibly permanent- stay in a prison, and if said prison was made into a very unpleasant and boring place to be, people might actually think twice about killing someone. Nawww...

Posted by: up north at August 31, 2007 12:44 PM (zhCff)

2 Put a hand reaching into the guy's pocket in the last picture and it would be more appropriate....

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 01:07 PM (m8+ac)

3 "A significant amount of that weapons smuggling happens on First Nations reserves spanning the Canada-US border, so there is another headache to consider." There is no way that the Ontario Sloganator-General would ever consider cracking down on that source. He would be crucified by the socialist media for "racial profiling" and any such action would result in more "peaceful demonstrations" such as the one in Caledonia now in its second year, where hopefully the protesters won't run out of new houses to harvest for their firewood before the government pays them off.

Posted by: JL at August 31, 2007 01:27 PM (X4u4p)

4 "It certainly sounds a lot easier just to target ordinary Canadians who have followed the law and registered their guns and are known to the police already, right down to where they live. These people have no power and no resources, and so are easy pickings." I believe this is referred to as the "low hanging fruit" method of law enforcement. Our fine Immigration officials are also fond of the method. After all, gotta be home by five.

Posted by: Marc at August 31, 2007 02:24 PM (+9+aa)

5 Excellent commentary. Killing someone is against the law so why is it important which object is used to commit an illegal act??? All the blame is being put on an inanimate object. This allows the governments to make more laws to restrict the movements of legal citizens. I believe that is the main aim of the gun hysteria displayed by politicians. They never mention that the Injustice System and political incompetence has led to so many criminals on the street. How many years ago did the federal Liberal 'Justice' Minister state that it was more important to focus an rehab for criminals than it was to protect the citizen. I am sorry, his name escapes me for the moment, but his words are burned into my memory for all time. As for finding the homes of gun owners. Has anyone checked how many computers have been sold by the registry? We know the government has a bad record for erasing info. Or just check the garbage behind the registry--they also have a bad habit of throwing information out. Then again there is probably big bucks to be made selling this info. And it is useless to have cars checked at the border. After the latest ruling that requires the border officials to have a court order before searching cars(the drug dealer bringing in cocaine from the US) came down it would be virtually impossible for cars etc. to be checked. Or maybe it is the panhandlers bringing them in on rail cars--after all, no one checks them as we found out after that murder in Toronto. Lets face it--we are wide open to criminal activity, and all any government wants to do is stomp on the innocent with more laws.

Posted by: George at August 31, 2007 03:31 PM (4xrBZ)

6 ...what a lot of gun owners insist needs to be done, and that is to increase the capacity of Canadian border control officers to stop American guns, purchased easily and legally in the United States, from crossing the border into Canada,... You mean, the way they've spent billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and completely shut down the smuggling of dope across the border? Unfortunately, Steve, you still love government. You hate the Liberals, but you cling to the idea that somewhere, somehow, if the right nannies are elected and if the right central planners come up with "sensible" government programs, that everything will be OK. But here's the thing: government nannies don't give a crap about you. Once you allow the anyone to claim a monopoly on anything, you leave yourself at the mercy of violent and dishonest people. Case in point: gun control weakens the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves. It puts them at the mercy of (a) criminal gangsters who don't give a damn about gun laws, and (b) government gangsters who have legislated to themselves a monopoly on the right to carry guns. Caledonia is a perfect example of the how both kinds of gangsters work together to deprive people of their property and freedom. The people in government are no more dishonest or greedy than anyone else - for example you could get robbed and abused by a private security company. But a private security company that abused its clients would quickly go out of business, because everyone would switch their patronage over to their competitors. But governments have no competitors. That's the definition of government. You could live perfectly well with no government at all. But if you insist that you still want some kind of nanny, and you don't want to live in a fascist police state, then fer god's sake stop trying to think of new ways to expand government and start thinking of ways to shrink it.

Posted by: at August 31, 2007 07:17 PM (tgNL5)

7 a few facts to demonstrate how much of this is opportunistic political spin and how much is crime control In Canada in 2003, there were 548 homicides, 161 resulted from shooting (29.3%). There were 302,000 Â“crimes of violenceÂ” and 5% of these crimes Â“involvedÂ” a firearm. This Â“involvedÂ” category is misleading, guns Â“involvedÂ” in crime are guns picked up by the police from a crime scene - say ones that were found in a closet. Guns are actually used in violent crime about 1.9% of the time. no gun = no funeralÂ” as a physical impossibility since 71% of homicides will not be affected Statistics Canada has reported that 2.27% of homicides in Canada were committed with a registered gun and only 1.21% were committed with a registered firearm that was owned by the accused (Statistics Canada study of 5,194 homicides between 1997 & 2005). A crackdown on the law abiding will accomplish what? In 2003, there were 161 gun homicides in Canada. Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun we can calculate what percentage of Canadian guns were involved in these murders. If we take the official figure of seven million guns we get (161/7,000,000 = 0.000023 or .0023%). Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide. If we pursue our policy of regulating crime by strictly regulating gun availability to the general public we can reasonably expect that .0023% of our efforts will affect guns used in homicide and 99.997% of our effort will be wasted

Posted by: Bruce at August 31, 2007 07:32 PM (+fvpG)

8 * There are more people who believe in UFO's... than say the "Farmer Bob Rifle Registry" is reducing gun crime in Canada. *

Posted by: neo at August 31, 2007 08:08 PM (c86Sr)

9 * THE NUMBERS: Who's capping who? "Of Canada's two million licensed gun owners... 0.00555%... used their firearm to murder someone." "On the other hand, in 2005, 64% of accused murderers had a prior criminal record, including 6% for homicide." Yeah, that's what I thought. *

Posted by: neo at August 31, 2007 08:29 PM (c86Sr)

10 First, this forum and thread is much appreciated by us who know the government is on the wrong track with regard to firearms in this country. We spend years preaching to the converted and true believers and as expected nothing happens, except dorks like Bryant, Miller and McGuinty get all kinds of press. The reference to the Montreal cop who sold info to the mob is but one minor example of how compromised the security of the Canadian Firearms Centre is. A few month ago, in Ottawa the postal codes for many or all registered firearms owners were published. For months, then legitimate, law abiding citizns have been betrayed by the very people who are supposed to honour their privacy- then there are the 14 year olds who can hack the CFC system. So, you see, our system is like swiss cheese- full of holes where the crooks can access he databases and target anyone, anywhere, anytime. For the Ontario Liberals to use the weaknesses of their federal counterparts against those Canadian sheeple is ironic and just plain wrong.

Posted by: David P from campbell River at September 01, 2007 10:38 AM (0WQh0)

11 Liberals are large on sybolism and weak on subsatnce...they will spend billions on feegood symbolism but little to actually attack root cause of crime because this takes 2 things liberals haven't got....a work ethic amd commitment to resolving issues definitively. Of course Bryant touts the symbolism of his church (the UN new age substanceless relativism of the avaricious craven bureaucrat)...it is his religion. I can tell you Bryant's tyransparent plan in 4 parts: 1) whip up emotional distraction over the liberal dystopian state's inability to come to grips with real crime and the unjust violence in the world. 2) Use philistine symbolism and manufactured "stats" to focus public angst on a hapless decoy that distracts attention from the state's ineptiude and failed ideological tinkering 3) Promise "bold" (symbolic) legislative moves to vanquish this manufactured boogyman 4) When real criminals continue to extract their violent bloody toll of society, you simply say you didn't go "far enough" with the previous symbolic distraction and promise a "real crackdown" It's the old Hegelian problem-reaction-solution political deception was first enumerated in Machiavelli's opus on deceptive statecraft...these opportunistic climbers in partisan politics have been shamming us with this shit for over 200 years.....difference is, 150 years ago, a lying washout like Bryant would be eventually found out and dealt with by the mob. Belly crawling slime like Bryant should be tarred and hung....but that would be too much like true social justice.

Posted by: Bill at September 03, 2007 07:29 PM (INHn8)

12 Liberals are large on symbolism and weak on substance...they will spend billions on feel-good symbolism but little to actually attack root causes of crime because this takes 2 things liberals haven't got....guts and commitment to resolving issues definitively. Liberal like Bryant like to talk...they think crime and all the evils in the world can be dealt with by endless navel gazing and nattering utopian platitudes. Of course Bryant touts the symbolism of his church (the UN new age substanceless relativism of the avaricious craven bureaucrat)...it is his religion. I can tell you Bryant's transparent plan in 4 parts: 1) whip up emotional distraction over the liberal dystopian state's inability to come to grips with real crime and the unjust violence in the world. 2) Use philistine symbolism and manufactured "stats" to focus public angst on a hapless decoy that distracts attention from the state's ineptiude and failed ideological tinkering 3) Promise "bold" (symbolic) legislative moves to vanquish this manufactured boogyman 4) When real criminals continue to extract their violent bloody toll of society, you simply say you didn't go "far enough" with the previous symbolic distraction and promise a "real crackdown" It's the old Hegelian problem-reaction-solution political deception was first enumerated in Machiavelli's opus on deceptive statecraft...these opportunistic climbers in partisan politics have been shamming us with this crap for over 200 years.....difference is, 150 years ago, a lying washout like Bryant would be eventually found out and dealt with by an angry mob. Belly crawling slime like Bryant should be tarred and hung....but that would be too much like true social justice.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 03, 2007 07:36 PM (INHn8)

13 I have visited your site 921-times

Posted by: Visitor585 at September 05, 2007 10:46 PM (AJN0v)

14 Hello first time to come to this forum, I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f

Posted by: lebron galaxy 9 at December 03, 2012 08:24 AM (z0AbP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 29, 2007

Did Michael Bryant deliberately obscure the link between No Gun No Funeral and the riding association?

If you look at the registration records for the two domains attached to Michael Bryant's No Gun No Funeral website, there are two obvious differences.

If those differences are connected, then it suggests a deliberate effort to obscure the link between the website and the constituency office.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 5 kb.

No Gun No Funeral is registered directly to Michael Bryant's constituency office

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has admitted that the website No Gun No Funeral is his. It is promoting his idea of a handgun ban, but is doing so anonymously. Or it was until it was revealed that all the people who administer the site were members of the Michael Bryant's constituency office.

Bryant insisted, however, that constituency resources were not used to make the website.

Perhaps we should revisit that question, since it can now be revealed that the .com version of the domain was registered in the name of the constituency office itself.

But then maybe none of this will matter, as the site itself seems to have suffered a serious technical problem, with the SQL database that serves up content now offline.

Update: The site is back up (it's 1pm on Thursday). No apparent changes that I can see. The registration information isn't any different either (though changes can take up to 24 hours to propagate). I would say they had a serious SQL Server issue, or a major upgrade or patch being applied -- something behind the scenes.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1087 words, total size 8 kb.

August 28, 2007

The paucity of inbound links to No Gun No Funeral

The key to success for any low-budget grassroots website is inbound links. A blog is a good example. Unless you are a celebrity of some sort, a new blog will get zero direct traffic. That is, no one is going to know the name of the blog or even know to look for it. Instead, you build up traffic by going to like-minded websites (other blogs, forums, etc) and leaving comments and links back to your new site. Visitors come trickling in, and if you are lucky, one day you reach a tipping point when people come to your site because they know about it already.

So when I study the inbound links to No Gun No Funeral, I am struck by the fact that the only inbound links are from conservative blogs who are criticizing the site either for its message or for the way it was being delivered without full disclosure of the source.

There are no links from liberal-minded blogs, from left-of-centre forums, from any site that would send traffic supportive of the No Gun No Funeral message.

Given that this purpose of this site, ostensibly, is to collect petition signatures, this doesn't look good.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:17 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 964 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Steve You owe me a keyboard. Those stats sure indicate They don't get it and have lost touch. Oct 11 is getting closer.

Posted by: John D at August 28, 2007 08:30 AM (5hdOB)

2 Since the TO Sun exposed Bryant's sleazoid little scam the NGNF web site has become a liability and I believe they have abandoned it. The neat thing about this is it sends a message to these philistine Liberal skanks that Ontarians have a low tolerance for strawman misdirects where law and order are concerned. They realize the reason GTA has become violent is because of criminal friendly utopian justice policy....which Bryant promotes. They see that him blaming lawful firearms owners for the Gang crime in Toronto is like banning ladders to prevent burglaries.....and they resent Bryant thinking they are stupid enough to swallow such vacuous strawman arguments. So Bryant's handlers know they struck a nerve in negative public response with this gun ban misdirect and have largely abandoned the NGNF site in an attempt to distance themselves from this albatross. But we won't let them forget it will we? ;-)

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 28, 2007 09:01 AM (INHn8)

3 Not one liberal site link? Hmmmmm. Yes, that is weird.

Posted by: muttsrus at August 28, 2007 09:01 AM (tOQix)

4 Not one link listed by Yahoo. I just want to be clear that we are relying on the search engines to be accurate. But to catch eight conservative links and zero liberals ones is odd. Note too that Canadaka is a forum with multiple sections. It has Liberal and NDP sections. But the link comes from the Conservative section.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 28, 2007 09:08 AM (eGtvb)

5 Not one liberal site link? Hmmmmm. Yes, that is weird. Not weird to me. I think it just indicates that even liberal bloggers have at least some sense of reality.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 28, 2007 02:29 PM (g7gYB)

6 Um... just as a question, wouldn't a grassroots operation have grassroots support? You know, the little people who are trying to get this operation off the ground? Oh, that's right. It's not a grassroots operation. It's a political site owned by a politician. Gotta wonder if he has claimed the costs for this site out of his campaign budget.

Posted by: Surecure at August 28, 2007 09:47 PM (Dn18P)

7 Anyone see that turdbag Bryant lying through his teeth at the press scrum over Truscott'a exoneration? After running road blocks to Truscott's appeals and OSCJ trial, he was making out like he was in "Steve's" corner rooting for him...what a total soulless media whore...They don't get any lower than Bryant.

Posted by: Bill at August 28, 2007 11:14 PM (INHn8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 27, 2007

More of Michael Bryant's associates tied to No Gun No Funeral website

The site created by Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant to promote a handgun ban in Canada, No Gun No Funeral, has strong links to the Liberal Party and to Michael Bryant in particular. More information is available, and even more links are discovered.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:29 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 801 words, total size 7 kb.

1 A Liberal came up with the MMP system? I'm going to take a hard look at that before I vote on it. I sure hope this isn't a backdoor method to retaining power. Nice blog Steve. Cockroaches hate light too.

Posted by: at August 28, 2007 07:59 AM (5hdOB)

2 Reject MMP it's a scam to allow liberals to split the vote by running sycophant indi candidates and win the house through cooperative alignment after the election. An insider sleaze paly if there ever was one. If a Liberal is fogging a mirror they are actively plotting to scam you.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 28, 2007 09:10 AM (INHn8)

3 I am offended by the nightly ads on tv for "workingfamilies" that tell us that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves cut this and destroyed that, yada yada but for the "last four years" things have improved greatly and things are finally back on track. These are not Liberal Party ads? I guess they are banking on Mr. Barnum being correct.

Posted by: muttsrus at August 28, 2007 09:25 AM (tOQix)

4 Steve, you're investigative work is truly amazing! I am somewhat surprised that the MSM hasn't picked up on this story. Perhaps they are lazy and content for you to do all the hard investigative work, or perhaps they are simply looking the other way, hoping the story will disappear? You wrote: "The phone number associated with the website was answered by the Michael Bryant constituency office, announcing that you have reached the "Michael Bryant Election Campaign". Does that not confirm a direct link between BryantÂ’s NGNF website and his election campaign? If the website is directly linked to his election campaign (as indicated by the common phone number) shouldnÂ’t its development and maintenance costs be reported as a campaign expense for the equivalent value of the professional services rendered, even if these costs are donated? If that phone is in Bryant's constituency office, I wonder who is paying for that phone line? If it is funded by his re-election campaign, then the website support is at least partially financed by his election campaign and should be reported. One the other hand, if the phone line is funded by the constituency office, then wouldnÂ’t that constitute a misuse of government resources? I also wonder whether the person answering that phone line or returning its voice messages is being paid as a constituency office (ie. government) employee or is a campaign worker? If the person is a constituency office employee, they shouldnÂ’t be collecting government salary for campaigning. If the person is a campaign worker, why are they working out of a government office? Is BryantÂ’s campaign paying rent to the government for use of that office? On Aug 23 in The Star, Michael Bryant was quoted as calling John Tory Â“truly boneheadedÂ” for criticizing the Liberal government for sending Crown lawyers and judges to luxury resorts at a cost to the public of nearly $700,000. Given BryantÂ’s sloppy work of covering up his stealth campaign website, perhaps he should look in the mirror for the real bonehead. I wonder if someone is working on a Â“No Bryant No BoneheadÂ” website? "We are a group of Ontarians dedicated to competent government. In particular, we support the election defeat of the Ontario Sloganator-General, Michael Bryant."

Posted by: Alan at August 28, 2007 09:48 AM (g39sw)

5 and then there is the matter of how well it will work Statistics Canada has reported that 2.27% of homicides in Canada were committed with a registered gun and only 1.21% were committed with a registered firearm that was owned by the accused (Statistics Canada study of 5,194 homicides between 1997 & 2005). In short, these new gun control proposals will have a direct and immediate affect on the law-abiding, perhaps some small affect on perceptions of safety and a vanishingly small affect on organized crime. However clever it may be for provincial politicians to define the problem in a way that makes it a federal responsibility, as a crime control measure Â“No Guns = No FuneralÂ” is doomed to failure. In 2003, there were 161 gun homicides in Canada. Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun we can calculate what percentage of Canadian guns were involved in these murders. If we take the official figure of seven million guns we get (161/7,000,000 = 0.000023 or .0023%). Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide. If we pursue our policy of regulating crime by strictly regulating gun availability to the general public we can reasonably expect that .0023% of our efforts will affect guns used in homicide and 99.997% of our effort will be wasted.

Posted by: Bruce at August 28, 2007 07:02 PM (+fvpG)

6 I agree that if the Liberals are pushing it= VOTE AGAINST IT. It has to be another scam. Just like all the others.

Posted by: zilla at August 28, 2007 07:49 PM (eRTJ1)

7 I know nothing about the "No Gun, No Funeral" site. But one blogger above says "A Liberal came up with the MMP system?" Well, no. The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was 103 citizens selected at random by Elections Ontario, and chaired by Judge George Thomson. Check it out: http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/OCA%20eng%20web_MASTER-001.wmv The result has multi-party support: "The three of us reflect three competing, democratic, partisan traditions in Ontario. We differ on many matters of public policy. We strongly unite, however, in our commitment to an electoral system that is democratic in more than name. The CitizensÂ’ Assembly on Electoral Reform produced an imaginative and practical proposal that will give us more choice, fairer results and stronger representation. We urge all Ontarians to come together and vote Yes for MMP in the October 10 referendum.Â” Carolyn Bennett, MP, Liberal Party Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader Senator Hugh Segal, Conservative Party" http://www.voteformmp.ca/about_campaign/campaign_activities

Posted by: Wilf Day at August 29, 2007 11:21 AM (nSXWF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 20, 2007

Wondering about the No Gun No Funeral petition

No Gun No Funeral might be getting a fair share of traffic from me. I've been linked by Instapundit, and the link is bound to drive Americans to the No Gun No Funeral site. Many of them will not be fond of gun control, and even less fond of what looks like an attempt to be underhanded in promoting a gun control agenda. Others will like the idea of a ban in Canada, since it might help their own efforts to promote strict gun control in the United States. Either way, they might make their opinions known to Michael Bryant via the online petition.

And whether these visits are critical or supportive of Michael Bryant's idea of a total handgun ban in Canada, their visits are bound to make things more complicated for Michael Bryant.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:37 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You should not be sorry for making the lives of antigunners complicated. The Liberals have made all law abiding citizens of this mucked up country who own firearms into criminals with the stroke of a pen. If a bit of the heat we have been subject to for over 10 years for no good purpose gets turned back on these brain dead vote scrounging weasels, I say it is looooong overdue.Keep up the good work, Steve.

Posted by: Dave from Campbell River at August 20, 2007 02:37 PM (e+PSu)

2 Looks like they've taken down the "view petition signatures" option. From what I remember from last week, half of history's third-world tin pot dictators, serial killers and Latin American entertainers had signed the petition. The other half of them + many ex-U.S. Presidents must've signed by now. Looks like the petition will be as legitimate as the grassroots organization that created the "No Gun. No Funeral." movement.

Posted by: alan at August 20, 2007 03:46 PM (2bEDO)

3 About the first few were names of people that can be linked back to the Liberal party. The rest, before it went down had some funny jabs. It seems that "astroturfing" is going to have a few sites scrutinized a lot more. Good job Steve, more light in another dark corner.

Posted by: Peter S at August 20, 2007 10:42 PM (+csG/)

4 Isn't there--or shouldn't there be--a law against this kind of thing? Great sleuthing, Steve. These Liberals, whether they're provincial or federal, have no shame; they're brazen in their entitlement to power. 'Just too bad that as the value systems in our schools, media, and even churches become increasingly relativistic (i.e., it's wrong only if I get caught), there are too few Ontarians/Canadians able to discern how wrong Michael Bryant's ploys are. As I said, there ought to be a law. That might get wide attention if it was proven--and there seems to be a lot of proof of wrongdoing--that Bryant and the Liberals were in cahoots in launching the No Gun No Funeral Web site and, further, that they went to great lengths to conceal said fact.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 21, 2007 06:51 AM (87YyB)

5 I think you misunderstand the purpose of the group. "No Guns, No Funerals" obviously wants to encourage handgun ownership by getting cemeteries to refuse to hold funerals for people who did not own a gun! I strongly support this, and in fact I support it so much that I signed it twice!

Posted by: VentrueCapital at August 21, 2007 07:49 AM (yi5rJ)

6 I don't know why the site would erase foreign names--I thought Liberals win elections with non-citizen votes?

Posted by: George at August 21, 2007 07:57 AM (eQyiP)

7 * Maybe Michael Bryant had better start shopping around for a new website. *

Posted by: neo at August 24, 2007 10:05 AM (qpvnV)

8 Wholesale Jerseys China - Nike NFL Jerseys Cheap Sales

Posted by: Cheap Bills jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:29 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 19, 2007

Is No Gun No Funeral political advertising now?

Before yesterday, the website No Gun No Funeral was not considered political advertising by Elections Ontario because it did not promote a party or a politician.

Well, hasn't that changed? The silly thing is that it was staring me in the face, and it was only now that I actually realized it.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:02 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Whooooooooooooooooooooooo Boy..... VERY interesting...

Posted by: Peter S at August 19, 2007 09:14 PM (Kix4r)

2 I think Bryant has been too smart by half. The question now is whether Elections Ontario is too biased by half.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 19, 2007 09:42 PM (g7gYB)

3 Why doesn't he just admit that its political advertising and register it? It would be a lot easier than this lie he's working on and it would also attract the kind of idiots he wants to get cheap votes from.

Posted by: langmann at August 19, 2007 10:00 PM (vai4s)

4 Bryant can't admit it is a lie--Liberals do not know the difference between truth and lies. Now, does Elections Ontario know the difference?

Posted by: George at August 19, 2007 10:11 PM (W4lth)

5 Zing! That's a pretty good line of thought Steve. I think the spin machine's getting cranked to 10000 RPM tonight somewhere in Toronto.

Posted by: at August 19, 2007 10:13 PM (Kix4r)

6 "Why doesn't he just admit that its political advertising and register it?" Because if he did it would have to be added to the tally for the election. Not only that but the registration of said expence has to include in-kind support from the federal counterpart the LPC. Now the question is, will the LPC be claiming the payment? And if so what is the stated value?

Posted by: gimbol at August 20, 2007 06:19 AM (IDRjR)

7 The Libranos desire to ban firearms, could it be just anudder boweledfaced LIE, to garner the pussy vote? Maybe they should only ban guns south of Coboconk, or Borup's Corner's, ON....and let us, up here, in NWO, pack whatever kind of hogleg we want to...

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at August 20, 2007 08:09 AM (g7gYB)

8 I think a good portion of this comes down to whether or not No Gun No Funeral is simply an autonomous campaign, or whether any organization has been set up in support of it. For example, if it's simply Bryant and his Liberal party colleagues running the campaign and paying for it out-of-pocket, it could be viewed as autonomous. But if there's a No Gun No Funeral committee set up, accepting donations from fellow handgun ban advocates, that would establish No Gun No Funderal as a political entity, and all funds contributed towards it should be classified as political donations, subject to the appropriate limits. If this is the case (and I can't think of any way to confirm it, aside from relying on the honesty of the Bryant campaign), then numerous people could be over their donation limits under federal election law. Mr Janke clearly has a bigger bag of tricks toward this end than I do. I actually tried to look up the site's registration info, but I didn't really even know where to look.

Posted by: Patrick Ross at August 21, 2007 02:48 PM (RH+wr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 18, 2007

Who made No Gun No Funeral for Michael Bryant? I have a theory.

I love sleuthing. Poking around and seeing what sort of inferences I can draw from the smallest clues. In this case I found a small clue that might point to who designed the No Gun No Funeral website for Attorney General Michael Bryant.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:38 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1141 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Musing out loud.... If he's donating to worthy causes? Does he have another income? If he's paid, is it a registered business? Sole, LLC, Inc? It is quite honourable and gracious of him to donate his time and abilities, I have abilities too that I'll donate to a cause, but I still have bills to pay...

Posted by: Peter S. at August 18, 2007 05:56 PM (Kix4r)

2 The last I heard about Liberal friendlies donating their time/services to "The Party", the follow-up revealed tales of brown envelopes stuffed with cash passed in a clandestine fashion at secret locales.

Posted by: zilla at August 18, 2007 06:12 PM (X9KIS)

3 In a similar vein, there are ads running on tv now by a "coalition" called workingfamilies.ca that are basically attacking the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves gov'ts for closing down hospitals and cutting medical personnel etc. The ads say that Ontario is finally getting back on track and things are getting better in healthcare and remember that come election time. When you go to their website they give a list of "sponsors" and a place to donate money but just like the NGNF site, there is not one name of anybody in charge, not one address that I could see. There is no political party affiliation but one would tend to think it must be a Liberal-NDP coalition from the list of sponsors. I guess this coalition has been going strong since 2003 but just haven't found any office space yet. What kind of coalition or group asks for donations or personal information without so much as a name of a person or an address visible on their site? Even the Nigerian spam artists manage to come up with a name when they ask for your money.

Posted by: muttsrus at August 18, 2007 06:50 PM (zNjR/)

4 "Working Families" isn't a coalition. It's a cabal of unions, which are listed at the bottom of this page on the website: http://www.workingfamilies.ca/about

Posted by: Joan Tintor at August 18, 2007 08:14 PM (Ky0jt)

5 No KNIFE, no funeral. No BASEBALL BAT, no funeral. No AUTOMOBILE, no funeral. No ROPE, no funeral. No BOOZE, no funeral. No CIGARETTES, no funeral. No asswipe Libranos, Federal or Provincial, BIG CELEBRATION

Posted by: at August 18, 2007 09:16 PM (g7gYB)

6 Right?

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at August 18, 2007 09:18 PM (g7gYB)

7 well investigated, Steve!

Posted by: Griff at August 18, 2007 09:34 PM (R2y1A)

8 Interesting isn't it what a real little guy, like Steve can uncover that rips up the myths and propaganda that social-re-engineerers shove forward. Makes me wonder what would happen if freedom advocates started researching deeper into many of the claims made by those in our society who seek to remodel our lives for us. Seems to me most of those who protest the growing intrusive nature of politicians into our lives don't do much past complaining loudly. Steve keeps proving that digging a little deeper uncovers facts, and that he always offers proof makes his work respectable. Why are others not copying his approach is the question Liberatians should be asking.

Posted by: RE-search it at August 19, 2007 07:58 AM (g7gYB)

9 Why are others not copying his approach is the question Liberatians should be asking. As admirable as Steve's research is, most libertarians realize that the problem is not that government services are delivered corruptly. The problem is that corruption is an inherent and integral part of government services. Governments establish monopolies, using force, which is another monopoly they hold. It's what they do. Monopolies give great power to those who can arrange to be appointed as the caretakers of the monopoly. Power corrupts. That's really all you need to know about How Government Works. The degraded and depressing fact of Canadian politics is that while once upon a time there were advocates of small government in both major parties, now there are practically none. All you'll find is one or two conservatives (at most) who dare to criticize big government - but whenever they get into power all they do is tramp the accelerator only slightly less harder than their predecessors, then claim that it's all OK because they're expanding government "smarter" than the liberals. Idiots. And I don't mean the people who are running the major parties.

Posted by: at August 19, 2007 04:23 PM (tgNL5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 17, 2007

No Gun No Funeral is Michael Bryant's site

Attorney General Michael Bryant has come out to say that he is responsible for No Gun No Funeral. But it is not political, nor is it designed to have him re-elected, nor is it using Liberal Party resources.

Or so he says.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:01 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I can't seem to stop smiling Steve. You're making my weekend.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 07:34 PM (Kix4r)

2 I really have to thank Michael Bryant. Before his smug little response, I was debating whether or not to volunteer my services to John Tory's and my PC candidate's campaigns. The decision is much easier now. I don't particularily take too kindly when a politician tries to insult my intelligence. Didn't want his name on the website because he wanted it to be about ideas and not politics? Please. For him, there is only one idea-his-and it's about banning guns.

Posted by: tori at August 17, 2007 07:38 PM (0RN+c)

3 How can anyone have any confidence that those we vote for are believable? Bryant is an embarrassment to the human race. Elections Ontario doesn't have any more credibility that Bryant. They, along with Bryant, think we will believe the spin. What does one have to do to be charged in a case like this? Will the Auditor be allowed to follow the money trail before the election?

Posted by: George at August 17, 2007 07:51 PM (LP3La)

4 Bryant is a twit - put him in a dress and pearls and he's still a twit, and a dishonest one at that. I'll respect a whore who'll admit she's one. Bryant is a political whore who deserves the respect I give my dogs' turds. I pity the people who elected him: they're the laughing stock of any Canadian with an IQ higher than room temperature in Dawson City in January. I do hope his constituents will have a sudden surge of intelligence and vote for anyone, anyone (including the deluded Marxist candidate) other than Bryant.

Posted by: Caveman at August 17, 2007 07:53 PM (01rlW)

5 George. I don't know if it would warrant a complaint for a police investigation. It's (pretty damning) circumstantial stuff. I think someone would need a "smoking gun" (hahahaha) for it to go that far. It would be amusing for the Attorney General to get investigated and charged. This will probably be relegated to the "Court of Public Decision" which convenes on Oct 11.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 08:00 PM (Kix4r)

6 Yeah... because when something calls itself a grassroots organization and it is made of nothing but people who work for the Liberal parties, run with the phone numbers for Liberal riding associations, set up on the net by organizers for the Liberal party and its youth wing... ...yeah, real grassroots there. I guess their definition of "grassroots" is about as accurate as their definition of "advertising dollars".

Posted by: Surecure at August 17, 2007 08:10 PM (Dn18P)

7 I just thought of something... he says that they are not using Liberal party resources to fund this. I wonder if that include: - email or long distance telephone support between Bryant's office and the Quebec address of the domain registrar - computer use of Liberal party computers to build the site - billable work hours at the Liberal party ridings for the people who created the site As well, you have to wonder, if the people who set this site up at the Liberal riding offices did it and claim to have done it for free, if it is done at the riding offices doesn't that technically make it a work donation to the party? And if so, would that not fall under Elections Canada's laws in regards to political donations since web design is a service and not a volunteer opportunity? Just saying... it's kind of a big grey area for Bryant to say his resources were not used.

Posted by: Surecure at August 17, 2007 08:16 PM (Dn18P)

8 I worked for Bryant's PC opponent in the 1999 election. Right after she was nominated, Bryant's web designer purchased her .com domain. When it comes to the underhanded stuff, Bryant's is gnarled and well-practiced.

Posted by: Joan Tintor at August 17, 2007 08:34 PM (Ky0jt)

9 * why doesn't someone set up "nobeggarnofuneral.ca" in memory of ross hammond? or "nobryantnodickhead.ca" these people are simply hollow, manipulative assholes. *

Posted by: neo at August 17, 2007 08:47 PM (mgSen)

10 If it looks like political advertising, if it reads like political advertising, if it sounds like political advertising, if it behaves like political advertising, if it has all the characteristics of political advertising, then common sense indicates that it is political advertising.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 17, 2007 09:51 PM (g7gYB)

11 Dear Marty Gobin: Going to the government asking them to shut down a website you don't like is not a libertarian act. It presumes that ordinary people, such as Steve Janke and his readers, and all others with a web browser and a brain, are too stupid to filter out political chaff from honest facts and opinion, and that because of this inherent stupidity our Daddy the government must constantly intervene, control and command what is said and not said. Besides - the kind of bullshit, Big Brother Knows Best, interventionist laws which you wish government to wield on your behalf weren't actually made to shut down establishment parties or the powerful and connected. They were intended to shut up YOU and YOUR FRIENDS.

Posted by: at August 17, 2007 10:07 PM (tgNL5)

12 Owwwwww Someone doesn't like it when deceit or dishonesty is questioned and brought into the light.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 10:34 PM (Kix4r)

13 I am above the law!

Posted by: at August 17, 2007 10:44 PM (oTh3Q)

14 Re: "Dear Marty Gobin" Dear Anonymous Person, I do not propose the hampering of private, free speech. However, constituency association resources have been used in this case, and those resources are subsidized by the taxpayers through tax receipts and often post-election rewards for candidates with a certain percentage of votes. This website is not private free speech worthy of protection but instead publicly funded propaganda that is being used to degrade the freedoms of the taxpayers who are forced to subsidize it. I would like to inform you, however, that you have falsely assumed that I actually requested that Elections Ontario shut down the website. I did not. I requested that they investigate whether any elections laws have been breached, and that Bryant the Tyrant's website bear the indication that it has been authorized by his constituency association as required to by the Election Finances Act. No request was made to shut down the website, and I certainly did not request that the website be registered as a dangerous weapon as Mr. Bryant claimed while defending the existence of his shill organization. Wanting to expose and possibly stop a website whose operation is publicly subsidized is not un-libertarian. The existence of such a website in the first place is un-libertarian.

Posted by: Marty Gobin at August 17, 2007 10:48 PM (/goF7)

15 Seriously people would a man who owns a copy of "A Few Good Men "on DvD abuse my own title? I think Canada should stop worrying about my ill judgment and move towards a communist party. I will create a new website to inform you on proper terms of society it is http://www.nofreedomhappybryant.com/

Posted by: Michael Bryant at August 17, 2007 10:53 PM (BZaa6)

16 Micheal Bryant is a thief. He is the biggest fraud liar scumbag I've ever saw. Whenever his lips are moving hes is most likely lying. If he were in my movie riddick i would have tore his head off his fucking shoulders.

Posted by: Vin Diesel at August 17, 2007 11:02 PM (Xya04)

17 You see here, Theeeeeo. Micheal Bryant is full of LIIIIIIIIIIIES. with his gobble gobblin and the yapper smapperin. with the jello pudding micheal bryant is a huge pussy

Posted by: Bill Cosby at August 17, 2007 11:05 PM (Xya04)

18 Wow, what a scumbag.. I wonder how he will explain THIS ONE to St. Peter, when his frivilous plee time comes

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2007 11:51 PM (xfwee)

19 It was said that no public funds were used in the operation of the site. That is in doubt. What about the poor dumb bunnies who support guns and no gun control who donated to the Association? What about all the party faithful who don't give a fig one way or the other on the subject of gun control and the status of the issue that he( Bryant) is tying to manufacture. He is certainly stealing from them to pursue his personal agenda.That is no different from the recent alleged fraud of the woman in another Liberal Riding Association- in reality it is worse. The cops should be brought in- not that I have any faith in them, but it will heat up Bryant's butt a little.

Posted by: Dave from Campbell River at August 18, 2007 01:12 AM (e+PSu)

20 noliberalsnolies

Posted by: Gerry 114 at August 18, 2007 06:58 AM (ub6z1)

21 Bryant has proven he's typical of the Liberal brand. What more need be said. Don't you just love the way Liberals have taken to tossing around the terms "grassroots" and "progressive". Wonder where they think they apply to their brand? McGuinty and crew are getting slimier by the day, re-electing them will ruin the Province. Interference into so many facets of people's lives by government can't be rewarded. We are lucky his term is running out and we have a chance to boot the bums.

Posted by: Libby at August 18, 2007 07:10 AM (VP7xW)

22 RUMINT has it that Michael Bryant officially had his middle name changed to "Grassroots" so he could use it on his website ?? Seriously

Posted by: Fred at August 18, 2007 08:39 AM (1J6rs)

23 And then there is the actual policy. In 2003 there were 548 homicides in Canada, 161 resulted from shooting. so three quarters of all murders did not involve guns. Even assuming his policy is perfect and substitution is impossible three quarters of all murders will still happen no gun = no funeral is a fraud they are calling guns not gangs the problem so they can put the blame for failure on the federal govt.

Posted by: Bruce at August 18, 2007 10:16 AM (+fvpG)

24 Steve, you have done Ontarians (and all other Canadians) a great service. You were equally impressive on Roy Green's programme yesterday (luckily I was switching from Bill O'Reilly's substitute to Dr. Laura when I paused for a moment and heard your commentary). Libby and Surecure, do you think that you might hear the term 'Ontario values' some time soon (prior to the coming provincial election)? Liberals liked using the term 'Canadian values' against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in the last two federal elections. Bryant is from British Columbia? And worked on coastal ships? Two of my favourite topics! Obviously, he's not a quiet westerner like Gary Cooper. In fact, very few of our premiers were actually born in British Columbia - which may explain a lot - it does to me. Lance M. Jefferson Richmond, British Columbia

Posted by: Lance M. Jefferson at August 18, 2007 12:23 PM (tmbBb)

25 Who cares? I mean, really... I have no love for the Liberals, but is this an issue at all? Honestly... would it really be all that bad for us Canadians if hand guns were outright banned? That might mean more serious jail time for the thugs that end up using them. To dismiss something because it's a "left" or "right" thing is stupid and ignorant. I'd rather have my tax dollars going to that then a whole lot of other McGuinty programs or policies. If you are going to try and make yourself famous (ya... I heard you on the radio), you better find a bigger issue than this.

Posted by: Mike at August 18, 2007 01:37 PM (Kco+R)

26 Funny, no sign of Ted

Posted by: paulsstuff at August 18, 2007 01:48 PM (Cpdi7)

27 Mike. You really need to the bigger picture. Your narrow-sightedness doesn't seem to grasp that the things you choose to enjoy freely can be singled out at someone's whim...and taken from you...against your will. Broaden your horizon's, people are making a "fuss" over something you might have no interest in. BUT if was something that interests you, then you'd be looing for them to "fuss" for you. The AG and the Liberal's HAVE FAILED to come up with a solution. The Liberal's are trying to pull a fast one and have gotten caught. Enjoy your freedoms today, someone might want to take them tomorrow.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 18, 2007 02:16 PM (Kix4r)

28 Steve that sounded good on Roy's show today. I like the fact he gave you time today too. I don't think he wanted to miss the people who couldn't hear yesterday at work. Gave them a chance to get "informed" on their leisure day off. Attaboy!

Posted by: Pete S. at August 18, 2007 04:12 PM (Kix4r)

29 "This is Captain McSquiggly speaking, The SS Tyrant now sailing for Davey Jones' Locker." "Rats have 5 minutes to desert....." That is all..... TOOT! TOOT!

Posted by: at August 18, 2007 04:17 PM (Kix4r)

30 "This is Kaptain McSquiggles speaking. The SS Tyrant will be sailing for Davey Jones' Locker. Rats have five minutes to desert....That is all" TOOT! TOOT!

Posted by: Happy Pants Dance at August 18, 2007 04:23 PM (Kix4r)

31 lmao at Mike. Let's see.. Steve's website is getting tons of traffic from this story, he's getting media airtime because of this story...and he has exposed a high ranking official in the leadership of the Ontario provincial government. Yet this is nothing? Maybe you should avoid this site. You're obviously too much of a waterhead to understand any of it.

Posted by: levesque at August 18, 2007 06:25 PM (jQxJp)

32 How about: More guns - Less Bryants

Posted by: Bill at August 20, 2007 11:14 AM (tiqqz)

33 Mike, funny line, "Honestly... would it really be all that bad for us Canadians if hand guns were outright banned? That might mean more serious jail time for the thugs that end up using them." Get a grip! We don't put dangerous people in jail now, what make you think that banning guns would make any difference? Mike please stay away from this site because you do not have anything of value to offer or stick around and learn something....you choose.

Posted by: Sheldon at August 20, 2007 03:10 PM (AI2hL)

34 Mike please stay away from this site because you do not have anything of value to offer or stick around and learn something....you choose. Sheldon's point notwithstanding, Mike, I would like it if you kept coming back. Everyone's point of view is welcome (with some very few and very specific exceptions). I think Mike made an interesting point. And you might all notice that I'm not actually taking a position on gun control or handgun bans, but on politicians creating sock puppets to present a point of view as if it was coming from someone else. Also called astroturfing.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 20, 2007 04:20 PM (zn65X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 16, 2007

Gun ban group -- Grassroots organization or Liberal Party sock puppet?

No-Gun-No-Funeral is a group dedicated to having handguns banned outright in Canada. The group will apply pressure to the federal government.

It implies that it is a grassroots organization.

If so, why is it that the only information I can find out about this group points to the Liberal Party, both the federal and Ontario wings of the party. Very interesting is the fact that the phone number for the site goes to the riding association for Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, who has promised to lobby for a handgun ban.

Update: Attorney General Michael Bryant announces that No Gun No Funeral is his website.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:03 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 2499 words, total size 20 kb.

1 Looks and smells like some sleight of hand. If they want to be "grassroots", they need to ditch the birkenstocks and lattes for workboots and Timmies for about, say, 20 years. As a firearms owner I can appreciate people's genuine concern over the issue and feel sympathy for the families. However, that gets curtailed PDQ whenever it is "hijacked" for political hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Yep, Liberal "blame the other guy" shows up once again. The CPC has some workable solutions...if the Liberal Senators would quit stonewalling. I suppose the "closet Conservative" is coming out in the Liberals and maybe even some admiration for the CPC. Afterall, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 16, 2007 08:27 PM (x+O+E)

2 * No Guns, No Funerals, huh? Tell that to Ross Hammond's widow. *

Posted by: neo at August 16, 2007 08:50 PM (bNZFz)

3 Bryant, eh? No wonder. He's the biggest cretin in Ontario politics. A politician so scuzzy, imbecilic and without a shred of morals that he makes a rat look good. I just hope the people in his riding will show some intelligence and vote him out, otherwise they'll be poster children for cleaning up the gene pool. I used to think Smitherman was the biggest shite in Ontario politics. Bryant takes the cake. Hey Bryant, you can have my guns... just grab them by the barrel and look into the hole while I pull the trigger. Frigging butthole.

Posted by: Anon at August 16, 2007 09:04 PM (2+9GG)

4 http://thestar.blogs.com/notebook/2006/03/how_the_ag_used.html

Posted by: tori at August 16, 2007 09:37 PM (0RN+c)

5 WOW Anon...you Liberals sure do get steamed when you get exposed. Such bitterness and underhandedness. Posing as a firearms owner, shame on you. Most firearm's owners I know, and I know quite a few, KNOW that spewing that sort of hatred is not acceptable. Most responsible firearms owners know that our published sentiments have to be worded to get the point across without such inappropriate, liberal, phraseology. I think you owe Steve an apology. Firearms owners too. I suppose you could resign as the AG over this...and save us the trouble in October. Pete S.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 16, 2007 09:50 PM (x+O+E)

6 the accompanying facebook group...one of the admins: http://www.ylc-jlc.ca/executive_e.aspx?id=15943

Posted by: tori at August 16, 2007 09:54 PM (0RN+c)

7 Anyone who thinks the Ont. Liberals are above using stupid, sneaky tactics to get their way probably hasn't been paying much attention to Dulton McRumpy's soundbites. Dole out welfare. Whine about how if "someone" wasn't ripping off your government so much with transfer payments, you could give out a lot more welfare. Demonize a group of marginal, unpopular misfits (or their dogs) and threaten them with draconian laws. Repeat. But to be fair to the losers running the province, they're basically the same as every other Ontario government of the last 35 years or so. Just a little bit more desperate and seedy-looking. Which probably isn't due to any particular traits of the party or the leader. The general slide into socialist have-not-ism and political infantilism would have led the leader of any of the current provincial parties to adopt the same angry, whiny, fraudulent agenda. When money is tight there are only so many ways you can feed a big, fat, government salami to people.

Posted by: at August 16, 2007 09:56 PM (tgNL5)

8 True liberals, all of them. Blame honest people instead of the pond scum that commit these crimes. They don't have the stomach to face criminals head on, so they blame you and me.

Posted by: Larry at August 16, 2007 10:03 PM (XlXI8)

9 I'm amazed some of the other anti-violence groups haven't contacted the media. I would be horrified and outraged if i'd lost a family member to a knife attack and bryant was screaming 'no guns no funeral'. How utterly disrespectful and dehumanizing to others who have suffered at the hands of violent criminals. More like no guns = no photo op.

Posted by: Warren at August 16, 2007 10:04 PM (WlGpI)

10 So what, Wanke? We all know REAL Women of Canada, Focus on the Family Canada, Civitas and Curves (your fitness centre) are just sock-puppets of the Conservative Party. And there's tons of information out there to prove. TONS!

Posted by: Anry on a Great White Toilet at August 16, 2007 10:04 PM (HDLv0)

11 makes ya think Warnout Kinsella's finger prints are all over this. Sounds like a mini Ad Scam style abuse of governmental power and taxpayer's money. Good call . . just in time for the election.

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2007 10:08 PM (1J6rs)

12 Hey AGWT, Gee, of those names, I don't see anything politically motivated to use the deaths of real people as their soapbox. I'd swear that, from their behavior, gun-grabbers just circle like crows and buzzards praying for their next meal(ticket) to fall. Pathetic, really.

Posted by: at August 16, 2007 10:35 PM (x+O+E)

13 Fantastic post Steve!

Posted by: Reader at August 16, 2007 10:38 PM (azjVQ)

14 AGWT Are you speaking english? Your post is gibberish. This article is about exposing the liberal party for the fraud that it is. Your disjointed sentence structure and ridiculous postulation of some 'magical facts out there' really belies an ignorance that could only belong to a 3rd grader.

Posted by: missing link at August 17, 2007 12:29 AM (jsY74)

15 Lets be honestly concerned here that the real issue is that tax payer funded resources might be used for partisan purposes just as the federal Sponsorship program was used to fund Liberal election campaigns. Now for the purely partisan comment: If McGuinty wasn't concerned about the conservatives gaining ground on him, why the sudden hard right turn (i.e.: crack down on street racing)? But I digress. Its true that since the last election Dalton's government has been crying poverty and blaming anyone within range for Ontario's financial woes. But this sword can come back hard when its shown that that regime was fast and loose with the tax dollars while crying that the cupboard was bare. All I can say is that Kinsella is going to have to work extra hard to earn his keep this time around....and if Dalton goes down in a ball of flame you can bet all the bridges Warren wants to use for an excape route will be burned by the Martinites.

Posted by: gimbol at August 17, 2007 06:17 AM (IDRjR)

16 Earlier in the week, McGuinty was claiming the United Nations had endorsed his government. This politician will say anything or do anything.

Posted by: Here and There at August 17, 2007 07:05 AM (g7gYB)

17 Anyone who advocates gun bans of lawfully owned civilian firearms by extension advocates civil disarmament and banning the right to lawful armed self defense. In a world of armed criminals and terrorists where police are not liable for your persoonl safety, the kindest word for this is politicized wickedness but it is better known as statist fascism. .......From my dead cold hands fascists!!! These groups need to be closely watched...I'll wager that the 5th column of this nations enemies want a disrned vulnerable citizenry and are not above funding the useful idiots who advocate for such social evil.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 17, 2007 07:51 AM (INHn8)

18 I'm sure most people here remember Paul Martin's promise to ban handguns (if reelected) in late 2005. Not long after, there were stories in the news of a noticeable spike in handgun purchases in Canada. Recently, a friend of mine is just getting into competitive pistol shooting. As such, he has been on the Internet looking at gun stores and talking with gun dealers all across the country. He reports two things: 1 -places that sell handguns do not have much time to talk to you on the phone. It's not that they don't want to -it's that they are simply too busy. 2 -in spite of all the hoops, headaches and red tape involved in being a firearms dealer, there are actually more gun dealers going into business in the last couple of years. Now when you consider that gun owners have been widely vilified since the Montreal massacre and that hunters are being looked down on more and more as the country gets more urbanized -why are people -in increasing numbers- going through all the hassle of acquiring and owning firearms ? Granted, this is all anecdotal information -I haven't bothered to look at statistics -I tend to trust my lying eyes (or a trusted friend's lying eyes) rather than the latest sci-fi from the Coalition for Gun Control. But still... As the aforementioned friend pointed out, "He (Bryant) probably realizes that if he wants to ban them, he'd better do it now, because the way things are going in this country -in a few more years he won't have a hope in hell".

Posted by: up north at August 17, 2007 09:19 AM (tVMRK)

19 As the aforementioned friend pointed out, "He (Bryant) probably realizes that if he wants to ban them, he'd better do it now, because the way things are going in this country -in a few more WEEKS he won't have a hope in hell". up north - Fixed that for ya. Cheers

Posted by: Peter S. at August 17, 2007 09:24 AM (Kix4r)

20 Janke, this is why you remain one of the best investigative political blogs within and without the BT roll. A truly excellent piece of work.

Posted by: mark peters at August 17, 2007 11:33 AM (PN+yN)

21 I find the statistics amazing! 30% of gun crimes are committed with a legally owned but stolen firearm. If Ontario has a population of 12,754,000 people and there are 215,000 registered handguns in the province (just to use these numbers for simplicity's sake) than that means gun thieves are somehow effectively and successfully targeting a mere 1.7 percent of the province's population! They must either be extremely lucky or else have an excellent avenue of intelligence regarding Ontario gun owners! What are the chances eh? (Hmmmm, or maybe they're just getting a look in that little binder tossed under the counter where you go to buy ammo. Y'know, the one that lists the name, addy, PAL#, calibre and amount of ammo that a person buys as per the Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994 of Ontario?) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... e.htm#s4s1

Posted by: Sentinel at August 17, 2007 12:28 PM (14/pv)

22 No it isn't a truly excellent piece of work. It is garbage. Where in any of that website does it claim to be anything but a "group of Canadians"? You are the ones inserting the word "grassroots". More importantly, so what? Janke tries to make the claim that they should be registered as lobbyists. Steve, don't embarrass yourself. You only need to be registered as a lobbyist if you are, well, a lobbyist, i.e. trying to influcence government decisions for "payment of a fee". God help us if normal public policy advocacy required lobbyist registration. But according to Janke here, only Liberals want gun control and if you are affiliated with the Liberals then everything you do must be a government action. What a joke.

Posted by: Ted at August 17, 2007 12:33 PM (V0pt2)

23 Sorry, bad link: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_94a20_e.htm#s4s1

Posted by: Sentinel at August 17, 2007 12:39 PM (14/pv)

24 Where in any of that website does it claim to be anything but a "group of Canadians"? You are the ones inserting the word "grassroots". More importantly, so what? Sigh! I wondered how long it would take for Ted (Canadian Cerberus) to show up and spout his usual inanities. As usual, he doesn't get it. When you are trying to lobby for a certain legislative agenda, which Bryant and his fellow Liberals have an absolute right to do, it is quite impressive to actually be a grassroots non-partisan organization. It is far less impressive to be a partisan organization. To pretend to be the former when you are really the latter is sleezy and dishonest.

Posted by: at August 17, 2007 01:18 PM (g7gYB)

25 By the way, mine is the above anonymous post. I forgot to add in the identifying information. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 17, 2007 01:20 PM (g7gYB)

26 Don't worry Ted, One day something that you care about will be in their sights and they will try to employ the same deceit to force it down your throat...against your will. Reject this insanity now or pay later... Firearms owners warned years ago about a "bad" law and were marginalized or poo-pooed. Sustitute "firearms" for "car" or "boat" or "BBQ" or "dog". Looks silly, right now. It won't be as "silly" when it affects your life and someone wants to "control" or "socially-engineer" you. "Nanny" says they'll be there for you when it's time. Ask the citizens of New Orleans where "Nanny" was when the levees failed...or those victims who have died, waiting, AFTER they called 911. There are reasonable solutions out there. Liberals don't want them, it infringes on their "raison d'etre". If you want to listen to their deceit, your choice. Steve brings things to our attention so we are informed. What's your contribution? Huh?

Posted by: Peter S. at August 17, 2007 01:25 PM (Kix4r)

27 I love it when Liberals come on and say "so what" to truly sleazy behaviour. Gold I tell ya, Gold!!

Posted by: at August 17, 2007 01:28 PM (GN3Xe)

28 brian, exactly! they have every right to put up whatever site they want. The problem I have is that they are trying to pass off the site as something put together by ordinary concerned canadians when in seems this may not be the case Honestly, if they had just put up a Liberal logo, this would not bug me in the least. This way just looks sneaky and underhanded and now makes me wonder if tax dollars are paying for this. For a party that is trying to run on openess and accountability, I'd say it is failing miserably.

Posted by: tori at August 17, 2007 01:35 PM (0RN+c)

29 Why is it the Liberal way to make these suggestions, but attach no fiscal plan for the costs of a handgun ban? The ban is a ridiculous suggestion, and it would not change crime in Canada one iota. That said, there are actually 1.1 million handguns legally registered in Canada, and the costs of destruction would be at the very least $500 per gun, without compensation! What politicians goes into an election promising to spend $500 million on a project that will not contribute to criminal control: Bryant and McGinty Where is the accountability for such outlandish promises?

Posted by: Lionel at August 17, 2007 02:37 PM (YYVpd)

30 So the site is located at the same place as rabble.ca, a group that is most assuredly not the Liberals, and the website was designed by some Liberals... and no one here is smart enough to figure out that maybe just maybe Rabble and NDPers might not want to be seen supporting the Liberal Party but they will support this initiative?

Posted by: Ted at August 17, 2007 03:14 PM (V0pt2)

31 Ted, If...if...I was a Lib (forgive me father...for I have had an impure thought...) I sure wouldn't want my name traceably attached to another "opposing" political organization. That would be suicide. ...at least in this case it wouldn't be with a gun. BTW, your fire extinguisher is running low...and your pants are on fire.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 03:21 PM (Kix4r)

32 Congratulations, Steve, not only on this post, but also on your interview with Roy Green. As another commenter stated, yours is one of the best investigative blogs around.

Posted by: Gabby in QC at August 17, 2007 03:55 PM (qVgJr)

33 "It would interesting, though, if it turned out that the Liberals were lining up with the NDP, or at least with some leading NDP social activists, to run this site." That would be interesting, because it would completely invalidate your claim that only Liberals are behind this site.

Posted by: Saskboy at August 17, 2007 04:17 PM (Z+nAX)

34 I called up Michael Bryant's campaign office, and they claim the website isn't part of his campaign. It just happens to have sprung up during an election during which Bryant is campaigning on pushing for a federal handgun ban. Yay, coincidence!

Posted by: Patrick Ross at August 17, 2007 04:19 PM (RH+wr)

35 Yes Saskboy it would invalidate it. It might show though that something is being hidden from the general party memberships of BOTH parties. Of course, I am speculating out loud. With elections looming (Provincially), or the possibility of (Federally), The NDP and Liberals really WANT their members questioning them about what's REALLY going on. Whether it's Fed or Prov is irrelevant when you do the "Name Brand" association game. If the membership falls into doubt and lose confidence they'll look elsewhere. Kinda hard to get any seats when your supporters don't trust you anymore. IIRC the May/Dion "alliance" jammed in some nice rifts/in-fighting and cast some doubt. Why not the Libs and NDP too? Geeeee, random thought here, What if this "theoretical joint venture" is a "test of the waters" to a future Lib/NDP gangup Federally and the "experiment" is being run "distanced" from the Federal Parties to see how it works out?...

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 04:51 PM (Kix4r)

36 Well, That makes it somewhat more interesting. I do wish someone would come forward and clear this up. It still does appear to leave the Liberals holding the bag. Oh well, theories about things get tossed everyday when something shows it to be inapplicable.

Posted by: Pete S. at August 17, 2007 05:02 PM (Kix4r)

37 It looks like you have forced his hand, Steve, on the site now, under What's up, there is a Sun news article where Bryant claims the website is actually his. Heh, heh.

Posted by: muttsrus at August 17, 2007 05:39 PM (udFyh)

38 So according to Ted, there was nothing wrong here. Looks like even Bryant disagrees with Ted, or he would not have come forth to correct his ommission.

Posted by: ward at August 17, 2007 06:25 PM (B5aoZ)

39 ...holy frack, where'd all the people come from??? Oh, SDA linked in. ;-)

Posted by: tomax7 at August 17, 2007 10:40 PM (jHhd0)

40 I signed the petition, because even an Africa Dictator needs to be heard, especially where guns are involved. Please send me more guns and I will forward to you my cousin the Nigerian Oil Minister's secret bank funds.

Posted by: Robert Mugabe at August 20, 2007 11:26 AM (VNM5w)

41 Took this poor old New Mexican a second to figure out what no guns no funerals meant. I had no idea that all Canadians die of hand gun wounds. I suggest that many of you might wanna come down here, as most of us die of natural causes.

Posted by: David at August 20, 2007 11:46 AM (zxFhJ)

42 Nice peice of detective work. Just a couple of points; There can be no compromises on this, any tightening of gun laws is another part of your inalienable right to self defence denied you. as an unarmed victem you will be easy prey for crimminals who take no notice of any law, gun law or otherwise. Britain tried the handgun ban, a little island, no land border (well, only to the rep of Ireland) handgun crime has more than doubled since the ban, even in the mid 90's the US burglary rate was 1/2 Britain's, the US crime rates have continued to drop, britain's to increase. I think Britain's murder rate is now higher than the US You all know the story... most US murders occur in inner city 'hoods with gun bans... Britain's criminals are using the latest and best guns; selective fire Uzis and AKs, these were never on certificate or stolen from civilians. they come in thanks to the high profits of the drugs trade. Keith

Posted by: Keith at August 21, 2007 05:18 AM (9mZyx)

43 Only $15 Wholesale Cheap Jerseys from China, Buy Cheap NFL Jerseys Free Shipping from NFL Jerseys Wholesale Shop. you can also wholesale NIKE NFL Jerseys, Baseball Jerseys, NHL JERSEYS, NBA Jerseys with low price and fast shipping worldwide.

Posted by: Cheap Seahawks jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:30 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

139kb generated in CPU 0.0346, elapsed 0.0975 seconds.
104 queries taking 0.0757 seconds, 357 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11790
Files: 27
Bytes: 137.5M
CPU Time: 10:51
Queries: 1029642

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

November 05, 2007

September 10, 2007

September 01, 2007

August 31, 2007

August 29, 2007

August 28, 2007

August 27, 2007

August 20, 2007

August 19, 2007

August 18, 2007

August 17, 2007

August 16, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds