From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca on behalf of Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Monday, 15 October, 2001 14:48 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #194 Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, October 15 2001 Volume 04 : Number 194 In this issue: Re: "View Point"Calgary Magnus for Mayor 407 charges laid in campaign aimed to curb moose poaching Knifing suspect under gun ban Canada Gazette Part II - Oct, 15, 2001 Sweeping police powers planned back in service Fw: Canada, Lead sinkers ban is lot of nonsense C-68 and the United Church connection Refugee protection act is a joke Media ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:31:37 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: "View Point"Calgary Magnus for Mayor On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Richard Magnus wrote: > I oppose bill C-68. Doesn't fight crime, it fights law-abiding gun > owners. Unbelievable waste of taxpayer's funds that ought to go to > increased policing. > > Rock should be ashamed. > > Hope that helps/Richard. OK. That clinches it. I'm voting for Magnus tonight after work. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:31:24 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: 407 charges laid in campaign aimed to curb moose poaching PUBLICATION: The Sault Star DATE: 2001.10.15 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: City PAGE: B2 SOURCE: Sault Star - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- 407 charges laid in campaign aimed to curb moose poaching - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- One month into the second Moose Watch campaign, nearly as many charges have been laid as during the entire two-month period last year. The enforcement campaign to clamp down on moose poaching has seen 98 tips received from the public and 407 charges laid or pending, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced Friday. As of Friday, 41 unlawfully hunted moose have been seized and eight moose discovered shot or abandoned since the season began in Northern Ontario just over a week ago. Last year nearly 500 charges of illegal moose were laid during the two months of Moose Watch. Moose Watch is a co-operative program involving the MNR, Ontario Provincial Police, Crime Stoppers and, most importantly, the public. Anyone with information into illegal moose may call toll-free 1-866-34MOOSE (346-6673), 24 hours a day until Dec. 15. Besides stepped-up patrols by MNR conservation officers, the ministry says a key component of Moose Watch is the use of violation reporting cards. These are being distributed by the participating agencies so hunters can note details of any incident, including location, names, vehicle descriptions and anything else that could help track down moose poachers. The program has proved so successful that it has been expanded this year to south-central and eastern Ontario, where a six-day hunt begins today. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:45:47 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Knifing suspect under gun ban http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-10-15-0040.html Monday, October 15, 2001 Knifing suspect under gun ban Police raid finds body By JONATHAN JENKINS, TORONTO SUN A stabbing suspect who shot himself to death as police moved in to nab him had been barred from possessing guns. "Police were heading over to speak to him and he shot himself while he was alone in the apartment," said Peel Regional Police acting Supt. John Sutherland said yesterday. Sources told The Toronto Sun the man -- whose name was not released -- was known to police and was prohibited from possessing firearms after previous criminal convictions. Police went searching for the man after 2 a.m. Saturday, when a 31-year-old woman was found stabbed in an apartment near North Service Rd. and Hwy. 10 in Mississauga. STABBING VICTIM CRITICAL "She received multiple stab wounds," Sutherland said. "She took one definitely up in the chest area and one in the back with a big knife." The woman was taken to Trillium Health Centre and later transferred to St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. She was in critical but stable condition yesterday. There's no indication of previous domestic violence cases involving the couple, Const. Heather Andrews said. Around 1 p.m. Saturday, police raided a home on Colonial Dr. in Mississauga and found the suspect dead. The incident is being classified as an attempted murder and suicide. A post-mortem is scheduled for today. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:45:54 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Canada Gazette Part II - Oct, 15, 2001 http://canada.gc.ca/gazette/part2/pdf/g2-135x3.pdf Canada Gazette Part II Monday, October 15, 2001 Regulations Amending the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations Government lists 17 more individuals and entities which there reasonable grounds to believe are involved in or associated with terrorist activites. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:46:03 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Sweeping police powers planned http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_P rintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1003010540708 Oct. 14, 02:00 EDT Sweeping police powers planned Anti-terror bill includes phone, E-mail bugs Tonda MacCharles OTTAWA BUREAU OTTAWA — Justice Minister Anne McLellan will introduce a bill tomorrow that proposes sweeping new police powers to bug telephones and monitor Internet communications as part of a package of anti-terror measures. Taking a cue from American anti-terror proposals, federal justice lawyers have drafted new provisions that would give police broader wiretap powers for criminal "terrorist investigations" similar to those the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) now has for security intelligence gathering, The Star has learned. Under the proposals certain to be challenged right up to the Supreme Court of Canada if they become law, police could get warrants for open-ended wiretaps of telephone, wireless and online communications. Officers would not be required to notify the subject and reveal the interception, as they are now obliged to eventually do under criminal warrants, which may be extended with judicial approval to a maximum of three years. In the United States, similar provisions, along with measures such as allowing indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, have sparked protests from civil libertarians. Canadian officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, expect the same criticisms — that the federal government has gone too far and has stomped on individual freedoms in its zeal to fight the new "war on terrorism." McLellan told reporters shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States that the delicate balance between protection of individual rights and collective security has shifted toward security. Canadians are about to find out to what extent the federal government believes that is true. The omnibus anti-terror bill proposes amending the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act and the National Defence Act. The bill is expected to go to the justice committee as early as this week for study and possible amendment. The government has said it wants the bill passed before Christmas. It would pave the way for the creation of a made-in-Canada terrorist list, a departure from Canada's traditional approach. For the first time, Canadian law would attempt to set out a definition of terrorism, one that sources say would be quite broad, and undoubtedly lead to challenges. The list would include not only organizations, but also individuals. Right now, Canada does not list outlawed terrorist groups, or their "fronts." Naming groups has always been regarded as open to challenges based in part on constitutional guarantees of freedom of association. But Ottawa has recently adopted the U.S. list for the purposes of seizing terrorist assets. The designation of who is or isn't a terrorist or what constitutes a terrorist group would be made much in the same way security risks are now identified under immigration law — by ministerial certification before a judge in secret, a process fraught with political pitfalls, insiders fear. Experts in immigration and criminal law say the major problem with naming terrorist groups and targeting those who support them is the risk of sweeping up innocent people in the government net. "Suppose Canadians raise money to help Kurds resist encroachments by Saddam Hussein," or raise money to help Israel resist the Palestinian intifada, said Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, suggesting they would risk being defined as terrorist supporters. "At one time, I and many others supported blacks in South Africa," said lawyer Clayton Ruby, adding the African National Congress "was surely a terrorist organization. Now they're the government of South Africa." Reid Morden, a former head of CSIS, suggested a high level of proof would be required to identify groups as terrorist fronts. Still, Morden believes laws need updating. Until now, he said, it hasn't been a crime for a terrorist to come here "for a cooling off period" and it hasn't been a crime to raise money for front groups that channel funds to terrorist organizations abroad. That would change under provisions of the new bill. The proposed law would: Create a new criminal offence that would outlaw fundraising for terrorist groups, instead of merely stripping such groups of charity status. This measure would bring Canada in line with the U.N. Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Fundraising. McLellan is also expected to propose making it easier to seize frozen assets. Create new Criminal Code offences relating to the targeting of public places, transportation systems, government or infrastructure facilities with explosives or other lethal devices. This would make Canadian law comply with the U.N. Convention on Bombing. Target membership in terrorist organizations the same way the federal government has tackled organized crime. The bill proposes making it a crime to be "part of a terrorist organization," and provides tougher penalties for acts committed as part of terrorist organizations. The question the courts would have to deal with is when does being part of an organization make you a terrorist. Allow the prosecution in Canada or extradition from this country of those accused of terrorist acts committed abroad. Amend the Official Secrets Act (a statute rushed through Parliament in 1939 and now so outdated it is rarely used) to prohibit disclosure of information to foreign states and terrorist groups that can threaten essential infrastructure. Now, the act carries penalties of up to 14 years in jail, and provides for trials held partly or entirely in secret, except for sentencing. Critics say it is so broad it could be used to charge almost any civil servant for the kind of office chit-chat that takes place daily. Amend the Canada Evidence Act to give new protection to information given Canadian officials in confidence by its allies. Clarify a new role for the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) a highly secretive intelligence-gathering agency that comes under the Department of National Defence. CSE specializes in electronic espionage, monitoring radio and other transmissions, and is responsible for intercepting foreign intelligence. Departmental officials fully expect constitutional challenges of many of the measures. Already, Canadian civil libertarians are concerned about the direction the federal government has indicated it wants to go in expanding police powers. "It's hard to imagine just what it is they (law enforcement agencies) are looking for that they don't already have," said Borovoy. "But I'm keeping an open mind." He said under the CSIS Act, the security service has extensive powers to get wiretaps to monitor activity "in support of acts of serious violence for the purposes of achieving a political objective within Canada or in a foreign state." "I'd say that's already wider than necessary," Borovoy said. In its last report, the watchdog committee that oversees CSIS criticized the security agency for casting an overly broad net in its investigations "with the result that politically active but peaceful and law-abiding nationalists were labelled as `terrorists.'" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:46:10 -0600 From: "David Leskowski" Subject: back in service Hi, Our server was out of service for several days. If any messages were returned, please re-send now. Thanks, David Leskowski ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:46:21 -0600 From: "David M" Subject: Fw: Canada, Lead sinkers ban is lot of nonsense Here's an interesting comment from John Dyer who, for those who don't know, works for Fish & Game as well as being a prolific author of shooting and wildlife realted articles. DM Sent: Friday, 12 October 2001 22:26 Subject: Re: Canada, Lead sinkers ban is lot of nonsense > There's a move to do the same thing on Lake Taupo, driven by one DoC > individual's research about how many lead sinkers are sold, inferring that > these must be to replace sinkers already lost. The second implication is > that the lake must therefore be being polluted by lead leachate. Now solid > lead actually takes centuries to dissolve and after it forms a patina on the > surface, and especially if it's in mud or in less than acidic waters, this > whole process can stop. Also, the majority of lead on this planet is from > naturally dissolving rocks as mountains weather away, which means, a few > hundred or even a few thousand sinkers in the relative immenseness of Lake > Taupo, dissolving over centuries, amounts to absolutely nothing measurable > in contrast to natural background environmental lead. None of this logic > stopped DoC calling for it to be banned. > > Then Forest & Bird cottoned onto this and started saying that the lead was > poisoning birds in Lake Taupo and should be banned for that reason too. > However, small problem. The lead sinkers used are not some tiny, easily > eaten lead shot, but actually huge lead balls weighed by the kilo, lots of > kilos, and are used to get heavy gear down to depth behind trolling fishing > boats. Any bird that swallowed one of these should get a medal just for > being able to open it's beak wide enough. Regardless of what the metal was, > lead, steel, whatever, any bird that swallowed it would immediately sink to > the bottom of the lake and drown. It would certainly never take off and > would undoubtedly choke to death first just trying to swallow it. > > In other words, it's the biggest load of crap you've ever heard, but like a > lot of things, once it has momentum, like the Emperor's new clothes, those > with vested interests, reputations or agendas, don't want to be bothered by > the truth. > > Replacing these lead balls used in fishing gear is easy enough, just > completely pointless. > > John Dyer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:46:32 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: C-68 and the United Church connection Oct. 12 2001 To: Cheryl Curtis Conference Minister for Social Justice and Ethnic Ministries United Church of Canada Dear Ms. Curtis: I recently received a copy of your reply to an e mail from Mr.Gingrich in which he asked that the United Church of Canada withdraw its' support of (Bill C68) the federal Firearms Act. I will not re-state all of the faults in C68 as Mr. Gingrich covered them quite fully in his letter. Frankly, I am amazed that the church,after "thoughful study and pray" should support this legislation considering that the Act: - -is 1600 pages long, 1598 of which directly impact on Canadas' safest, most responsible citizens. - -was challenged by 8 provinces and territories. - -is unacceptable in whole or in part to all provincial governments elected since 1996. - - severely limits or eliminates a handful of hard won rights that are the very threads of our traditions, freedoms and legal system including "the right to remain silent" and the "assumption of innocence until proven quilt." I know it was before your time, but I find it interesting that although the United Church of Canada was the leading provider of funds for guns to the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War prior to WWII; the church is now supporting legislation that aside from eliminating legal rights, could be used to dis-arm the nation. Let me make this quite clear, I am not saying that this federal government will disarm the nation. I am only asking why the United Church of Canada would align itself with legislation that could make that possible at some future date by some other federal government? Your answer to Mr. Gingrich poses more questions than answers. 1) When was the 74th annual meeting of the Toronto Conference held? 2) Who were the delegates? 3) Did they represent all sections of the church? 4) Did they represent all parts of Canada? 5) Did they represent the clergy and the laity? 6) As it is a massive bill, was there ample time to read and examine? 7) Was it a secret or open vote? 8)Do your clergy know of this decision? 9)Do your church members know of this decision? 10) How were they informed? I ask these questions in all sincerity, as I know members of the your denomination and I suspect some clergy, who are not aware of or do not approve of the church's position on this devisive legislation. Your church's decision to endorse this legislation may have been made early in the life of Bill C68, before all the provisons and costs where known. The current, admitted costs to date exceed $ 500.000.000.00+, projected to reach $1,000,000,000.00+ before completed. With our once vaunted universal health care in shambles, reduced funds for education, no money for shelters, and the funding for other social programs greatly lessened or eliminated; there is, however a bottomless federal pocket of funds and resources to harass Canadas' safest, responsible citizens (firearm owners). As you feared in your resolution, police services in rural and urban Canada have been reduced. Could these funds and resources not have been better spent on sevices that help people? Perhaps, now that the true costs, provisions and intent are becoming known, your organization could and should reconsider its' original decision and recind support of this devisive, unneccessary, expensive, insulting, and victimizing legislation. I look forward to your reply to my questions,comments and suggestions. Yours for a fuller life Rob.A. Hetherington Responsible Firearms Coalition of Canada Kamloops B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:18:26 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Refugee protection act is a joke Of course, anyone who speaks out against unfettered immigration is, by Lieberal definition, a "racist"... http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/16n1.html October 13, 2001 Refugee protection act is a joke Bill C-11 won't fix a cumbersome system that is open to abuse By Rory Leishman -- Sun Media Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan maintains there is nothing wrong with Canada's refugee determination system that will not be fixed by Bill C-11, now before the Senate. Tom Kent begs to differ. In the current issue of Policy Insights, he charges that, "the proposed new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, long in preparation and now before the Senate ... is a classic of its political kind: if you can't fix on a definite policy, perhaps fiddling with process and procedure will cover your nakedness." Within Liberal circles, Kent's opinion used to carry considerable weight. He is a former policy secretary to prime minister Lester Pearson and a deputy minister of Immigration. In Kent's well-informed opinion, "it is our peaceable society that will be made insecure by failure to fit immigration policy to the times. The danger is heightened in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Wall Street and the Pentagon." Caplan smugly maintains, "Canada's refugee determination system is considered a model for the world." Kent urgently warns the system is wide open to abuse. Under current rules, all refugee claimants, no matter how bogus, are entitled upon arrival in Canada to free legal counsel to guide them through one appeal after another as their claim for refugee status winds through the system. The system is so cumbersome, notes Kent, "appeals to stay in Canada can be dragged out for years." TIME TO SET DOWN ROOTS As a result, bogus refugee claimants have ample time to set down roots in Canada. They make friends, some get married and have children. "The humanitarian case against deportation becomes stronger with every legal delay," Kent observes. "And from time to time, as the administrative burden of unfinished cases mounts, the government devises some kind of amnesty to allow many of the applicants to stay without further proceedings." Caplan insists Bill C-11 will fix the system. Yet her half-measure will do nothing to streamline the processing of the great majority of refugee claims. Only claimants who are deemed a security risk or have been convicted of a serious crime will have their right to appeal deportation orders curtailed. Prior to 1985, Canada had a refugee determination system that worked reasonably well, thanks to the Immigration Act, 1967, Kent initiated. This law assured refugee claimants the right to an examination under oath by a senior immigration officer who reported to the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. If the committee rejected the claim, the applicant could have the decision reviewed by an independent Immigration Appeal Board. That was it. Except on points of law, there were no further appeals to the courts. This system for adjudicating refugee claims was so eminently reasonable, fair and efficient that it was commended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Supreme Court decision Why, then, did Parliament undertake in 1985 to replace these comparatively sound procedures with the current cockeyed system? Actually, Parliament did no such thing. It's our sovereign masters on the Supreme Court of Canada who changed the law. In a unanimous ruling in Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1985, the Court decreed everyone who shows up at a Canadian airport or other border point is entitled to exactly the same legal rights guaranteed to every Canadian citizen by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's why the most bogus refugee claimant and terrorist who arrives in Canada is now entitled to hire a lawyer at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and can spend years battling a deportation order through one set of hearings after another. What can be done about this schemozzle? Kent advises: "It can be corrected: not, with the urgency required, by a constitutional amendment, but by use of the 'notwithstanding' provision (of the Charter) that was included in order to retain the sovereignty of Parliament." Specifically, Kent has called upon Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause to enact a judge-proof law, "that confines the legal protections of the Charter to persons whose residence in Canada is legally sanctioned." Alas, the Chretien government has refused to embrace this sensible proposal. The Liberals will not stand up to the Supreme Court of Canada. They prefer to stick with a defective refugee system, despite Kent's warning it affords "an easy entry for people, including those with terrorist intentions." Leishman is a freelance columnist with the London Free Press ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:47:56 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Media >Mr.Bill Good News Anchor > >Sir: >I was viewing the 6:00 P.M. news this evening, when at approximately 6:30.,an announcer said something along the lines of', " after the break a story about a Seattle shooting and a possible N.R.A. connection." > >I waited to learn more and was informed that the story was about the shooting of a Seattle lawyer who was, among other things, a spokesman for an anti firearm organization in Washington State. The Seattle Police were quoted as saying the crime was still under investigation. There was no mention of any N.R.A. involvement. > >Why was it implied that the N.R.A.might have been involved? Why was the Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca N.R.A. even mentioned? Was some kind,of not so subtle, anti firearm message being delivered as news? > >The National Rifle Association ( N.R.A.) was formed by the American Federal Government following the American Civil War. Its' purpose was to promote the civilian use of firearms for the preservation of the union in times of strife and to preserve Constitutional firearm rights. It is also the leader in the promotion of safety programs for children. > >The American Government considers the N.R.A. to be one of the most accurate information sources in the U.S.A. Its' membership has and does included Americans from all walks of life. Several U.S.presidents were members. Its' president is currently Charlton Heston and a major spokesman is Tom Selleck. Both are gentlemen beyond reproach. > >Why then was it inferred or implied that the N.R.A.might have been involved in a murder? >Does the writer of the teaser have a bias? Where is the objectivity in this style of reporting? I think that the reference to the N.R.A. in this story teaser was totally unacceptable. It was not news and it was not offered as informed opinion. > >I am asking for a written transcript of the story lead - in and the story. If I am right I expect a full on air apology and more objectivity in future firearm stories. > >Yours truly > >R.A.Hetherington Director >Responsible Fireams Owners Coalition of B.C. > ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #194 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@home.com List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n992 end (992 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.