Yankee, go … get ‘em

The “revelation” (shock! horror!) that the NRA has been offering advice to Canadian groups opposed to the long gun registry — cough, for a decade — has the Liberals watering at the mouth quivering with indignation. Why, Liberal House leader David McGuinty was so furious at this foreign intervention that he was forced to call a press conference:

McGuinty says the U.S. gun lobby has no business being involved at all in a Canadian debate.

”We are here to say that the National Rifle Association and its members and its leadership should butt out of Canada’s gun registry debate,” he said.

He said the Harper government shouldn’t be paying any attention to an American voice.

”This is a government that is choosing to listen to a powerful foreign influence over our own police, our victims’ groups, our medical experts, in fact the majority of Canadians when it comes to gun control.”

Well, bang on. The last thing we need are powerful Americans coming up here and telling us how we should … What’s that? Oh. Never mind:

Nancy Pelosi’s office insists that the most powerful woman in American politics is not out to target the “dirty oil” from Alberta’s oilsands, but green groups and the opposition Liberals in Ottawa wish she would.

The U.S. House Speaker met Thursday morning with representatives from the Pembina Institute and Environment Defence, two groups highly critical of oilsands production.

“As the main customer of tarsands oil, the U.S. has a leadership role to play where our governments at home are failing,” said Environmental Defence executive director Rick Smith…

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty praised Pelosi and the Obama administration for trying to force change in Canada.

“A customer has come calling and said we’d like to see an improvement in the product we buy,” McGuinty told an Ottawa news conference.

That Harper government: they just won’t listen to powerful foreign influences.




Browse

Yankee, go … get ‘em

  1. Why are you guys all doing the same stories?

    Isn't there enough news to go around?

    • LOL what's the matter emily, not gonna launch into a triade against those yankee loving Liberals who want Pelosi to dictate our enviromental policy?

      • I've already said once today that the Americans should stay home and mind their own business.

        And in case you haven't noticed, following the American lead on the enviroment is Harper's policy, not mine.

        • LOL But Emily, what about the environment? Don't you have any principles?

    • The reason that they are all doing the same story is because it drips of insinuation and innuendo, plus the reek of hypocrisy is a stench common in the liberal ranks. just my opinion

      • A partisan opinion.

        • Your not partisan emily, you're mostly unhinged in your hatred of the current government.

          • Emily's unhinged PERIOD.

            I thought environmental protection was a principle of left-wing politics. Can you hear the screeching tires on this one? What a fast U-turn.

          • http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2010/09/15/is-oil-sands-

            Ezra destroys the Greenpeace apologist. The GP activist equates Saudi and Alberta governments as equal because voters in Alberta have voted Conservative for 40 years.

            I am curious how these Liberals get to school, work and the next protest. Do you think Tinkerbell provides these people with zero carbon emission fairy-dust?

          • Levant crushed him because he thought he could have it both ways.

            I heard this guy speak when Jeffrey Sachs skipped out on a speech he was due to deliver at the U of A. He pulled his "Saudi Alberta" routine then, too.

      • What was H. Clinton telling Canada to do about women's health issues earlier this summer?

        • She was on the tax funded network (hosted by retired Much Music VJ) George S. Hillary demanded taxpayers fund abortions in Africa.

          Why do Liberals push abortion in poor regions so much?

          • Better question: why do they assume abortion is the answer so bloody often?

          • Why does the leadership in the Liberals, Democratic Party in the U.S. predominately favour abortion (population control) in the poorest regions as a solution?

            Theory:

            An ethical or moral value system not consistent with ours? It is best to keep asking Liberals about their value system.

    • Complaining about what story(ies) any of the writers at Macleans choose to cover is always the first sign that there is no real defence for whoever said article is targeting. This is like those who keep saying "The census? You're still on about that? But Iggy said such-and-such."

      McGuinty has been deservedly gotcha'd on this one.

  2. Now Andrew…don't start trying to make the Liberals see how hypocritical they are

  3. Um, Andrew, this is a new low in your writing abilities. The comparisons you make are outlandish. What you are comparing is an american right wing gun nut organization trying to influence politics in Canada with a foreign political leader trying to ensure that they are getting a "clean" oil source. They are our largest purchaser, it would be odd if they didn't come up once in a while to see where it's coming from.

    I know your capable of forming strong and thought out arguments, but this isn't one of them.

    • Riiiight. And if the Americans, as our largest purchaser, were insisting that we keep the oilsands going flat out — say, to supply their military — and to hell with the environment, you'd be fine with that. If the Conservatives, back in their opposition days, were pleading with Newt Gingrich to dictate terms to the Chretien government, you'd be okay with that. Riiight.

      • No, I'm saying it's not unusual for your largest purchaser to be interested in how you manufacture your product or to have influence over it. It is unusual, no never mind, it is wrong for a right wing american group try to influence the governance of our country.

        • Yes, one is a cultural belief on an internal matter, the other is about trade…an external matter.

          We are going to sell the oil, that isn't in question….the question is, who to?

          So a potential customer comes to kick the tires, and then there'll be a yay or a nay.

          If it's nay, there are other customers.

          • *snicker*

            The answer to that, Emily, is very simple:

            To the Americans.

            Unless Nancy Pelosi wants to REALLY destroy the Democrats. She's already doing a fine enough job of it. But tempt fate by increasing the price of energy for Americans by turning away from the closest, most secure supply of oil in the world?

            That would be a coup de gras to her own party, and she knows it.

            So they'll quietly continue to buy as much ethical oil as ever before.

        • No, Coyne is right and McGuinty is an unprincipled hypocrite.

          You would be wise to let this one go.

          • LOL says the partisan.

          • Coyne may very well be right about McGuinty, I just think he can come up with a better argument. What is being compared is every day business between trading countries and a foreign organization trying to influence domestic policy.

          • Frankly, I couldn't imagine a better example at all. McGuinty could walk into your living room and he'd have a hard time contradicting himself more obviously.

          • The Federal Liberals in Canada and the Democrats have a great record on the Environment.

            Just ask them.

            They will tell you too.

            Perhaps Holly and Emily are partisan in the employ for either the Liberals or Democrats and compensated from a Soros funded organization.

            Just a theory, can't prove it as they have kept their personal identities hidden on this blog.

          • No, I'm just a patriotic Canadian who despises liars and is getting pretty sick of partisan BS. No one pays me for my opinions.

          • I agree that the Liberals have a terrible record of neglect on the environment and it should be recorded in the history books that they failed Canadians; but the Harper Conservatives are worse, cancelling good programs, holding us back from developing green technologies and denying the reality that we humans are changing our climate and we need to change our ways or die in large numbers.

          • You have failed to provide any proof you are Canadian. Do you work for an American environmental group trying to score some cash?

            Do you still hear strange voices? Did Al Gore sell his beachfront properties? How is that rising sea level story going? Your reality is not based on science or evidence. Your theory like your emotional attacks are preaching to the converted. The fear and guilt trips don't work on me. Try scaring someone gullible, young schoolchildren are great!.

            Feel free to link the names of those good programs that the auditor general Sheila Fraser did not highlight as ineffective.

            When Green Peace yesterday suggested the Alberta government is similar to the Saudis it is game over. You just don't get it.

            Do you have any money invested in the Carbon Exchange Market in Chicago? It is time to sell!

          • What a dishonest load of crap.

        • It's "not unusual" if you happen to agree with it. If they were interfering in a way you didn't like, I'd bet my house we'd be hearing nothing at all about the inherent rights of major customers to tell us how to run our businesses. Me, I don't have a problem with it. But the Grits' hypocrisy is worth flagging.

          The reason the Liberals raised the NRA issue is because they wanted to raise the gun registry to another emotional level, by making it not about guns or registries, but about foreign influence. But clearly there are some sorts of foreign influence they like: the kind where they agree with the influencer. They're only opposed to foreign influence where they disagree with it. In which case it's not about foreign influence at all: we're back to the plain old gun registry.

          Rationalize it all you like, but there's something just a little bit odious about an opposition politician mounting the patriotic barricades one day, and the next toadying to a foreign leader to use economic blackmail on his own country.

          • It's just politics…yet another political 'gotcha' in fact.

            I simply thought that what with news like the JTFII in sand traps, coups d'etat vanishing, the govt gagging scientists apparently, and Harper's increasingly bizarre behavior there'd be more in the news than gotchas.

          • Yes, im sure that you would prefer the news focus on Harper's mishaps then hypocritical Liberals.

          • I'd prefer news, period.

            Harp's 'mishaps' are a big part of the news because he's the PM.

            The Liberals are not in power….Cons still think they are for some odd reason.

          • if you want news, let me recommend the news section of an actual news site. this is a blog entry from a magazine website which is more 'current affairs' than straight up news.

          • I'm aware of what it is, thanks.

            Are these things being covered elsewhere either? No.

          • Then how are you aware of them?

          • Were you?

            Are most people?

            No.

          • Nice dodge. How are YOU aware of them? If you're upset that macleans.ca is not covering nonsense from fringe lefty group's press releases, well, what can I say other than "dont forget to take your medication".

          • Well since I loathe the leftwing just as much as I loathe the rightwing, that's not likely.

            And Alpha Nerds shouldn't be telling others about 'medication'.

          • So, how are you aware of these so-called facts?

          • See…you don't know anything about them.

          • i know that you made them up – thats something.

          • "I loathe the leftwing just as much as I loathe the rightwing"

            Not based on the posts you make here. I guess there must be a bunch of inflammatory posts from you over at the Daily Worker or something.

          • Liberals and Democrats don't view themselves as left-wing.

            They perceive themselves as centrists and not an ideological extreme political party. It is the other guy that is a radical "nut" according to them.

          • They don't think they are, they just like to play make-believe for fundraising purposes.

          • In how many provinces are the Liberals not in power? One taxpayer, layers of government.

            One-third Fed Government and Liberal Premiers+Cities to provide 2/3 for projects? Care to explain that cozy relationship?

          • The government gagging scientists is also an imported American practice. The Bush administration kept scientists like James Hanson from having timely interviews with the media in exactly the same way, by making them wait for permission from the administration until media deadlines had passed. The main difference in Canada is that the Harper government is gagging all of our public servants in the same way, not just scientists.

            Why the hell aren't you going after them for that, Andrew?

          • Gagging scientists LOL Hanson… now thats funny.

            More like the Enviro-nazis gagging, to the point of vomit, anyone who listens to them

          • You American NRA type should go home and play with your faux-manhood symbols.

          • Note: in Holly's lexicon, "American" is an insult. Canadians good, Americans bad. It's a very sophisticiated political philosophy and values system.

          • Liberal apologist Holly must be tired. American republicans, scary Christians, American independents (Tea party voters)

            American Democrats are wonderful.

            Liberals are terrified of a Conservative majority in Canada.

          • I'm not a Liberal and don't thinkmuch of Ignatieff, but Harper is worse and his government is destructive.

          • I don't like the idea that the US could potentially influence how we get the oil out of the ground but as our largest consumer its a fact of life that they can, or we can look for other purchasers, they are out there. This is a fact whenever we export to the US, we have to meet there standards, we have to follow there rules, yet I don't see you crying foul over this or do you see me calling the governments of any stripe wrong to bowing to the US over this. But this is hardly comparable to an american organization trying to influence our internal policies.

          • It's just a fact of life. Canadians try to influence American policy (Layton was in Washington to lobby for universal health care), and Americans try to influence Canadian policy.

            Michael Moore warned of the "extreme right wing Stephen Harper" during the election in december 2005. Im sure you were just apoplectic at this foreign influence.

            Avaaz, a George Soros front group circulated a petition to prevent SunTV from getting a license. I remember the outrage from all the Liberals.

            Sierra Group funded a boycott campaign against Alberta. The CBC made a one hour special about nefarious foreign influence for the occasion.

            These are just off the top of my head. Im sure there are many more.

          • "…Avaaz, a George Soros front group circulated a petition to prevent SunTV from getting a license. I remember the outrage from all the Liberals. .."

            At least two lies in that I am so sick of rightwing liars.

          • whatever, the point is that Avaaz is foreign. whether its global or just american is really besides the point. what is clear though, is that Liberals feign outrage at foreign influence they dont like, and heap praise on foreign influence they do like.

          • Mmm no, Canadians are in it too.

            Global.

          • Canadians are in the NRA too. I guess that makes the NRA global and its influence welcome right?

          • Evidence?

          • Ah yes. Holly "prove it" Stick. I will prove it. Once you prove to me that there are Canadians in Avaaz.

            And also, please prove to me every single statement in this post:

            "The government gagging scientists is also an imported American practice. The Bush administration kept scientists like James Hanson from having timely interviews with the media in exactly the same way, by making them wait for permission from the administration until media deadlines had passed. The main difference in Canada is that the Harper government is gagging all of our public servants in the same way, not just scientists."

          • Now back up every statement you make.

          • Ok, I wont bother reading all this cr@p but i'll assume it says pretty much what you just said (as well all know, if something's on the Internet, it must be true right?)

            Here's the NRA registration form https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

            feel free to sign up.

            Note the option to select any country in the world, and the following disclaimer:
            "Applicants outside of the US and Canada, please disregard State and Zip fields."

            Global! Now Im sure you're just loving that NRA influence.

          • You must be a Sun reader: can't manage the big words.

            Incidently, that registry appears to include all countries on earth, which is not proof that they have members from all such countries.

            Are they registered as a group in Canada?

          • I bet you're just so happy to have the GLOBAL NRA influence Canadian policy because they're GLOBAL. Me too. I just wish the GLOBAL Avaaz organization influenced Harper more because Avaaz is just so GLOBAL.

          • Yeah, they get rich selling the frontier image to nerds like yourself.

            Makes you feel like you're in the movies.

          • Are you saying im not a cowboy like Clint Eastwood? Cause if you are, well that's just mean.

          • Prove it! You claimed to be a Canadian.

          • I'm a member, and I live in the Niagara region.

            also a CSSA member, NFA member, and am in a position to tell you that the Chieefs of Police a liars regarding police support of the registry..

            good enough holly?

          • your kidding right? good enough? an anonymous poster on a blog making a statement has zip for validity, sorry robins111 but unless you are willing to identify yourself, and I honestly suggest you don't, you might as well cite Wikipedia as a source.

          • Probably an American NRA type; these rightwingers lie all the time.

          • your kidding right? good enough? an anonymous poster on a blog making a statement has zip for validity, sorry ChrisWPG but unless you are willing to identify yourself, and I honestly suggest you don't, you might as well cite Wikipedia as a source.

            (If you apply your own test, you should be reaching for an ice pack for the slap to your face)

            Perhaps you can ask Holly and Emily to take the same test and stop hiding behind anonymous internet aliases while citing wiki and partisan blogger sites as proof.

          • …Which you have no interest in anyway.

            Any reason I should waste my time digging it up for you?

          • The Americans can and will use their influence as they like: as you say, that's a fact of life. We always have a choice whether to bow to that power, though we can hardly ignore it.

            But you'll agree that's different than a Canadian political party asking them to lay the heat on the government of Canada on their behalf: using the economic muscle of a foreign power to achieve what they cannot achieve by domestic political means — that is, to set policy for Canada.

          • Andrew I think you are missing my point. I don't agree/like anybody having influence over Canadian policy. But that's not what your blog started off as. Your argument stated that it was hypocritical of the Liberal party to on one hand denounce foreign influence while on the other accept or even encourage it. My argument was that these two things are not comparable. One organization is our largest trading partner and the largest single consumer of our oil, giving them a vested interest and a right to make demands of the industry and the other is a right wing organization trying to influence domestic policy.

          • but is there not a broader point here. foreign political influence is ubiquitous and unsupressable these days Chris. we are not about to, and couldn;t if we want to, build a wall to keep it out. and frankly trying to stop it will just sift the most obvious elements while allowing a lot more, and potentially more eggrigous forms, fly under the radar.

            as such, i have to give it to Andrew. it is not that there can be not distinguishing varrying types of foreign influence as you suggest we can, but the legitimacy of these will always, more or less, be a subjective, political argument. McGuinty didn;t bother to do draw distinctions or make a case as to why form is to be accepted as legitimate and the other is not (you have on his behalf). instead he just, as Andrew suggests, tried to scare/get people to hyper-ventilate over NRA participation (I think Andrew should have been more nuanced, it is not just foreign influence fears McGuinty was trying to play off, it was a particular brand of NRA, gun-totin' foreign influence). so, mcguinty does come off as hypocritical.

          • "…and the other is a right wing organization trying to influence domestic policy."

            You've unwittingly reinforced Andrew's argument. It isn't the "foreign" influence the Liberals (and you) have a problem with. It's the type if influence. At least you admit it. The Liberals should probably admit it too, if only to themselves, and stop framing the debate in terms of foreign influence.

          • Well since the Harper government's appallingly bad environmental policies are based on waiting for the Americans to do something, we have already lost our sovereignty over our own environment; or rather we have our politicians kneeling to the American, both in the Harper government and in my own Alberta government..

          • Perhaps the PM can name a cat Kyoto?

            Sign treaties, hire Rick Mercer to do commercials and increase emissions as your party did?

            From 1993-2006?
            http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/choose-your-o

            Brian Mulroney had a better record than the Liberals that followed.

          • I'd say you have the better of this argument, Mr. Coyne, although I also agree with those who point out that, as the primary purchaser, America has some interest in how oil/tar sands are produced.

            But there are other examples: For one, the comments made by Ujjal Dosanjh in his "not-an-MP" role investigating the deportation of Roma from France. One wonders how an Indo-Canadian can call the act "un-French" and expect to be taken seriously, but clearly he wants to influence the debate — and yet no one is calling his visit unwanted interference that taints the debate.

            Similarly, in a non-governmental context, the pro-pot crowd who begged Canada not to deport Marc Emery to the U.S. saw his acts as defiance of unjust laws and the U.S. "war on drugs", even though what he did was illegal on both sides of the border. Emery and his ilk sought to influence the debate in both countries, and given the relaxation of pot laws in the U.S., you could argue he succeeded.

          • Whoops — cut myself off there.

            We try to influence all the time, even on debates that are wholly internal to another country. We have no more right to judge France's immigration laws or U.S. drug laws (or the Armenian genocide)than they have to judge the gun registry, but it doesn't stop us from doing so.

            I have no love of the NRA — I once wrote a letter to Time stating that Charles Heston was so intellectually bereft as to make Ronald Reagan look like Stephen Hawking. But it's no surprise the NRA assists Canadian groups with similar goals. I assume (without knowing) that pro-life and pro-choice groups across the border do likewise, and yet I've seen no special report suggesting a vast conspiracy or improper influence (as is the case here).

            It seems raising this issue now is a tactic to sway the debate, but one that doesn't help answer whether the registry works/is worth the cost. I have an opinion on that, but since it's nothing to do with the CBC pointing at the NRA and saying "Holy #$%@", I'll save it for another time.

          • That's a terrible argument Andrew…. the NRA and elected office holders of the US are not equivalent. Every Canadian is uncomfortable with American interference, but they are WAY more uncomfortable with NRAness.

            The NRA, Fox News, Tea Partiers, are all toxic organizations to Canadians… and I don't think it's just because they're foreign, but because they're CRAZY, and extreme. This is, of course, why the Liberals are trying desperately to link the Conservatives to the NRA… not so much because it's American, but because it is *conservative* American, which I think you'd agree is a different species (or was) from Canada's own conservative tradition.

            The Conservative Party are the ones who thought it would be fun to play Culture War to divide the electorate to their advantage with this registry issue in the first place. Well the blade cuts both ways, my friend. If the Conservatives want a culture war, the Liberals should give it to them.

          • I agree….if we're going to have a culture war, then let's have one.

            Wedges are dangerous things for govts to play around with….so maybe they need to be 'given' a wedgie to bring it home to them

          • I don`t think the Conservative Party existed in 1995 when the Liberal Party " thought it would be fun to play Culture War to divide the electorate to their advantage with this registry issue in the first place ".

            The Liberals knew the registry was useless in 1995 but went ahead with it anyway because they thought it would show them as being compassionate to the victims of gun violence while at the same time they thought it would solidify their urban seats.

            Meanwhile 2 billion dollars later nobody is safer from gun violence. McGuinty will be a disaster as House Leader—-he reeks of insincerity and dirty tricks.

          • Oh…did you think changing your name would make people believe you're new?

            Sorry, no.

            The gun registry has been useful since we first started it for hand guns.

          • The gun registry/gun control was first implemented in Canada 1895 to limit the sale of firearms to the First Nations. Indian affairs was closely monitoring the sale of both ammo & guns.

            In 1935 the Canadian government began the restriction/registration of handguns to deny them to possible Communist organizations, including labor movements.

            After the Montreal incident, the Progressive Conservative Government legislated new safety training & documentation, it also included background checks re criminal records.

          • In 1995 Liberals again changed the firearms legislation (to deal with the Montreal incident) which prohibited several firearms, limiting capacity and further intrusive personal questions, Tell me Emily, how do you feel about discussing your sex life to a government bean counter? the restrictions on firearms types included what the government of the day called assault rifles, because Ghamil Gharbai (Marc Lepine) used one. However, the firearm which Gharbai used is still freely available in Canadian gun shops. The registry portion of the firearms act was implemented in 2003.

            To this date no statistical evidence has shown that the hand gun registry, limiting firearms to the first nations, and/or registering or prohibiting any firearm has any effect on crime, domestic violence or accidental shooting.

          • Part 3
            More to the point, several studies, (not done by the NRA) have shown that armed self defence has a reductive factor on violent crime.. It is perhaps ironic that the CTV just did a Docudrama on that pig farmer, the only women who escaped him, used a weapon

          • could you please cite your source for your above mentioned study?

          • guess not….

          • The NRA, Fox News, Tea Partiers, are all toxic organizations to Canadians

            Wrong. You are such a bigot.

          • Well, this is a characteristic tendency of left-leaning Canadians: they claim that their views are held by all Canadians. I'm not sure why that's so.

          • Well, I'm tired of it. It's time we call them what they are – bigots. If they continue to disparage, delegitimize, insult, and vilify opposing views, then they're bigots. They treat people with such views as non-people. It's not much different than treating blacks, jews, or any other group as non-people.

          • I would agree with O.B. they cite they are the majority and other opinions are radical, without merit and emotional.

            Emily, Holly (Liberals) truly believe they hold the only legitimate positions based on evidence and facts.

            In some ways they remind me of the fictional Borg collective from Star Trek Next Gen. in order to improve us they need to assimilate non-Borg to their new order.

          • 1) I respect your right to have an opinion. But I certainly don't respect the *substance* of your opinion, because your opinions are bad and dangerous, and reflect poorly on you as a person. Not all ideas/thoughts/opinions are created equal, some positions are better than others. So yes, I most definitely reserve the right to judge/condemn/evaluate a person on their political beliefs (to the extent that I judge anyone at all…. which to be honest I try and avoid doing because it's generally unhelpful)… But if you were to judge someone, what better to judge them on than their beliefs?… something that is within a person's control to change, and crucial to their identity? (I should probably note here that it's important to take into account factors beyond someone's control that shape opinion as well: political socialization, access to education, etc.)

            2) This is what separates my discrimination from classic bigotry, bigotry is hatred against someone for something they cannot control. To the extent that an individual has agency over her values and beliefs, discrimination is acceptable and necessary.

          • You're wrong. Again. For someone who claims we should be judged by being right or wrong, you have already proven you should be judging yourself harshly.

            Webster:

            Definition of BIGOT
            : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

            Dictionary.com

            big·ot

            a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

            That's you.

            As for point (1), the whole point is that you ARE judgmental to an extreme degree, that not only do you think you're right about everything, but in addition to that, you are so arrogant that you disparage and insult opinions that differ. You have not a modicum of humility, wisdom, or modesty. That makes you an intolerant bigot. And now you've gone ahead and confirmed it.

            Most people think (a) they're not perfect and (b) that you should not disparage differing opinions because of (a) and (c) even if you are right about something, you should not be so intolerant of differing opinions anyway, because everybody is wrong at some point or other, and in addition things are not always black and white.

          • Not at all. You denounce the NRA, Fox News and the Tea Party as toxic organizations to Canadian because you're terrified of the ideas they represent.

            Because I think that, deep down, you know these ideas are better than your ideas. You can't compete.

            It's that simple.

          • Yeah the ideas they represent do terrify me, BECAUSE THEY'RE CRAZY!!!!

            Also, the whole 'you're just JEALOUS' line? really? are you in fifth grade?

          • So, your best response is an ad hominem attack?

          • It's the Liberals raising the gun registry to an emotional level?

          • The gun registry, and the justifications for it, were built on emotion from the beginning.

          • Well killing people tends to be a bit emotional… i see your point.

          • But it's more than foreign influence. It's an identifiable group, heavily baggaged by their own mythology. The NRA are a way handier group to get the folks clutching their pearls, 'cuz they're the 'pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands', 'I like strict constructionism – except when it comes to the 2nd ammendment", lock n' load gun nuts…er…lovers of freedom.

            Regarding foreign influence, though, the point about Newt Gingrich, above, is bang on.

          • The truth is that the Liberals prime tactic on these matters is distraction. They know, as everyone else familiar with this issue knows, that there is not one single fact that supports the long-gun registry.

            Not one.

            They can't win on the facts, so they fear monger. It's what they do.

          • That would be expected if you are rewarded by the Press.

            Do you think if the Press took each party equally to task for "emotional blackmail" our discourse would improve?

      • Sorry the Americans *did* lobby to have the oil sands go flat out during the 90s and 00s, and Chretien certainly did not interfere with the terms of trade in that case. And when Chretien did actually defy pressure/lobbying from a Republican White House, over the Iraq invasion, I seem to remember a certain leader of the opposition screaming bloody murder about it.

        • Yes, and Harper did the screaming on Fox TV in the US.

        • I believe he was screaming about the hypocrisy of the Liberals position on Iraq.

          At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_

  4. difference being, the gun registry is a purely internal debate, whereas the oil sands aren't, and US intervention being supported by the Libs is the kind any customer has. Not too mention, the oilsands is an environmental issue and it could be argued that Harper opened the door on that issue by saying he'd pair some of our enviro policies with that of the US.

    A more appropriate comparison would be to the Avaaz anti-Sun Media petition.

    • Canada and the US share an advanced trading relationship.

      Oil Sands is primarily an export product, as is our auto manufacturing-production in Canada.

      A left wing organization based in New York (alleged 5-6 million Global) in public support of the Democrat party (Avaaz) with an alleged 400k internet membership in Canada is free to shape public opinion as our other political parties or movements based in the U.S.

      The CBC our national tax funded broadcaster is free to provide support including publicity for Avaaz, the Democratic Party, Global warming alarmists as Al Gore, David Suzuki.

      Unless we have specific laws on the books that we enforce to limit or regulate such influence.

      Can you imagine the outrage if we enforced the CBC provide equal air time for the non-Liberal worldview?

  5. Nice catch.

  6. TWO Coyne columns? Wonders never cease.

  7. *yawn*

  8. If it was just advice and not financial support, then big deal. There also does not seem to be any evidence of active lobbying on the part of the NRA, directly or through proxies.

    Many gun manufacturers are based in the US, so they would have some interest in the overall condition of our market. The presence of the gun registry seems relatively unlikely to deter someone's choice to purchase a long gun. The gun makers might be nervous, though, if there was a widespread fear, among the producers and others, that the registry is but the first step in a stealth campaign aiming for out-right banning or confiscation.

    Under my scenario, I could see the Liberals getting nervous that the NRA might provide a cogent arguement to their Canadian confreres that ultimately scuttles the LGR.

  9. Lets not forget that we have an online petition from an American left wing group trying to influence whether Sun TV should be getting a licence. This is even more insulting. David McGuinty always looks like he has a firecracker up his a$$. He needs to learn to pick his battles or he is going to lose big time in the House.

      • Avaaz is funded solely by George Soros who has a very shady past particularly when it comes to influencing things that will help him earn billions of dollars.

        • No, it's not. Stop making stuff up.

        • That is a lie. You know nothing of how they are funded.

        • I can see why you might believe that falsehood – after all it was being peddled by the staff of a cabinet minister, John Baird.

          The fact is though, that Avaaz is not some shadowy, Soros-funded entity hell-bent on destroying Canada as you know it.
          http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/avaaz/

          • Neither is the NRA.

    • Not a p-p-p-petition!

  10. Are we really expecting the LPC and the various Liberal MPs to be consistent in what they define as 'foreign influence' (or that matter any political party). Here's the rule – if it supports your position it is OK (and probably should be encouraged), if not then it is the end of Canada!

    • The NRA is a lobby group promoting firearms. They are not a foreign power. And as they make politicians south of the border grovel (see Reid, Harry) to kiss their rifle butts, it is perfectly reasonable to flag their activities in this country. The U.S. Government, on the other hand would fit the bill of 'foreign influence'. Neither case is positive. One, however, is more unavoidable than the other. And it ain't the lobby group.

  11. Imagine the reaction if Big Oil were to attempt to own or influence the energy industry in Canada !

    If that day ever comes surely we will need our guns ! (:

    • LOL!

  12. Two lies at least, and probably more in the rest of your crap if I bothered to read it.

  13. One story is about buyers – Pelosi – insisting that filthy oil is not something they want to buy, the other story is akin to the CIA torturing the Canadian diplomat to death in Pearson's day, extreme right wing lunatics in powerful places interfering in Canadian politics and the Cons lying about it, again. You really want that senate seat badly, what a long way MacLean's has fallen since Gzowski's day.

    • Some days I like Coyne—-some days I don`t.
      But for you to say he`s a long way from Gzowski may be the best compliment he gets this year.

  14. BGLong I assume you are being ironic, since big oil took over Alberta in 1947 and hasn't surrendered it since.

    • I'm not as talented as Mr. Wells so the best I can do for irony is .. (: …. sorry.

  15. Coyne you don't get it.

    If liberal Democrats interfere in Canada's affairs, you are to applaud.

    It's only a problem if conservative Republicans types do it.

    That's the main stream media way of seeing the world – through a left/lib view.

    You certainly can't blame David McGuinty for going with it: he's fully aware the main stream media will play along.

    • Yes, I'm sure the CBC will be running an expose on the insidiousness of the NRA influence (oh wait, they already have). Meanwhile, I'm sure the CBC will praise Pelosi's visit (oh wait, they already have). Our lovable national propagandist, that CBC.

  16. Liberals crave the praise and adoration of their betters in America, they hope to be kept as pets.

  17. Conduct that is met with a shrug by the media when the Liberals do it, is a scandal when done by conservatives?

    In other shocking news, the Sun rose in the East today.

    • In related news, Sun TV will destroy Canada (and possibly all sentient life on earth) as we know it (a CBC exclusive)

  18. Oh look! Kory Teneycke recently said: "…What if the NRA came in to Canada with petitions and advertising campaigns, trying to influence Canadian policy and Canadian decision?… People would be outraged!.. …It's shameful…"

    At about the 6:50 minute mark during this interview: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/ID=158212

    Hat tips to http://jamesbowie.blogspot.com/2010/09/call-bartl
    http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/

    • Teneycke said that on September 3, 2010, on the same TV clip where he was busted over knowing too much about whoever had committed identity theft or fraud or whatever on the Avaaz petition. Watch him, doesn't he look shifty.

    • I don`t get your point—-Kory was right—–there has been no evidence that the NRA has come to Canada with petitions and advertising campaigns. As has been pointed out in a couple of blogposts here, the NRA story is a hatchet journalism job by the CBC. The continuation of the story depends on dubious commenters like yourself.

      If you would like to investigate three names who have attempted to import American influence to our Canadian policies and political parties, I`ll give you three.
      Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Michael Ignatieff.

      • False, there is evidence that NRA has been helping the gun nutters up here:
        http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09

        And if you're going to yak about American influence, how about the rightwing speakers who keep infesting Canada like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Ann Coulter. Yuck!

        • Holly: It is not very helpful of you to continue to cite the same old CBC that has been shown to be a hack network not interested in finding the truth and balance on any issue.

          The names you mentioned may have been to Canada in the past few years but certainly not to do work for any political party.
          The names I mentioned have all all been imported here to do work for the Liberal Party.

          • What nonsense. You imagine that Nancy Pelosi is working for the Liberal Party? You don't actually understand what politicians do, do you?

        • But not with advertising campaigns or petitions. With advice to Canadian activists, who then go about their own business.

          It's a big, BIG difference — not at all like George Soros funds trying to influence the handling of the Sun TV application.

          • Why are you repeating that lie about Soros funding Avaaz now. He gave them money years ago to start up but they don't get money from him now.

          • LOL

            Who's lying now, Holly?

            The Soros Foundation grant itself was three years ago, this is true.

            However, Avaaz is also the beneficiary of a steady flow of funds from MoveOn.org, SEIU and Res Publica — all of them recipients of Soros funds.

            I guess the presence of so much American money in an allegedly-global movement just makes you rather "uncomfortable…"

        • *snicker*

          George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Ann Counter have given speeches in Canada! Someone get Holly to the feinting couch!

  19. Didn't Howard Dean come to Canada to speak to a Liberal assembly to teach them pointers on how to win?? Couldn't get much more influencial than that in my opinion. Oh Sorry… forgot for a moment… it's OK when the Liberals do it!

  20. What? No snide comments about Ignatieff being a foreign intervention in Canadian politics? I'm a little bit disappointed. Glad to see Howard Dean got mentioned but we should also remember that Obama's campaign manager also came to give NRA-style influence to the Liberals at their last convention. I'm sure David McGuinty was outraged and the CBC was freaking-out.

  21. Yeah, remember back when the Liberals vilified Alberta for suggesting that the healthcare was unsustainable – and now that is common knowledge.

    It is really hard to understand how 2 Provinces are in the HOLE 200 BILLION!!! and they are hoping to shut down a province that is their lifeline -WAKE UP!

    • That's just the kind of jealousy that tends to dwell in central Canada.

      If they can't take Alberta's wealth for their own, they want to deep-six it.

  22. Thank you, Mr Coyne, for your astute views. Unfortunately the responses don't measure up to your logic. Plus ca change……….., The comments put into daylight Canadians' continuing ghastly anti-Americanism. Or do these posts mean anything at all? Perhaps not.

  23. That democrats advise liberals – republicans advise conservatives – causes me no problems. That President George W Bush on an official visit to Canada drops in on a meeting of Canadian conservatives to toast their leader as the next prime minister of Canada causes me no problem either.

    But when officials from the government of Canada interferes in a US election it's a different matter (NAFTA-gate).

  24. Left wing hypocrisy knows no bounds. Do as I say, not as I do LOL

  25. US doesn't like our dirty oil? Ok. Build a merchant navy and sell it all to China. But at the same time sell them our (if there is such a thing) clean oil. Maybe sell all our natural resources to China and let the states use up what they have. US would pretty bare country within a few years, if they had to depend only on their own resources. Kinda 2 faced???

  26. "This McGuinty is about as focused as his useless Premier of Ontario brother." The king of spin, spin, spin…

  27. C'mon Andrew, are you really saying that there's a significant equivalency between a U.S. Firearm Lobbyist Group and the Speaker of the House of Representatives? That's just silly.

  28. Don’t forget soros/avaaz as foreign leftists influencing us

  29. Avaaz information

    is It appears they are only targeting Conservative seats that might be close contests. They did have a few musicians donate as well to Avazz.

    Penn, by the way, received support from the group One Step at a Time that collected $4,200 from 60 individuals, according to its submission to Elections Canada, and spent $3,463 on a Times Colonist ad, as well as from Avaaz's national campaign, whose many donors included musicians Sarah Harmer, Leslie Feist and Dave Clarke. http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/19/LunnThirdParty/

    Third Party Election Advertisng Report 2008

    4516 Financial Contributors (only 24 listed from 1k to 200 listed)

    Contribution Amount $155,582.69

    ELECTION ADVERTISING EXPENSES TO PROMOTE OR OPPOSE THE ELECTION OF
    ONE OR MORE CANDIDATES IN A GIVEN ELECTORAL DISTRICT – 45,441.73
    OTHER ELECTION ADVERTISING EXPENSES NOT LISTED ABOVE 12,292.10
    TOTAL ELECTION ADVERTISING EXPENSES 57,733.83
    http://www.elections.ca/fin/thi/advert/tp40/tp-00

  30. Andrew:
    Your comments today at CKNW to allow illegal Tamils to enter"because they have been on a Boat for 4 months" is STUPID.You may be trying to increase your Liberal circulation but you are an idiot. You have provoked me to cancel my Macleans subscription.

Sign in to comment.