News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - December 13, 2005
To The Editor;
Re: Liberal announcement to ban handguns.
Enough is enough!
This morning, I read in the paper where the federal Liberals are proposing to ban handguns. I am outraged and feel I must speak out.
The Liberal¹s Billion Dollar Fiasco, the Gun Registry, hasn't reduced gun crimes at all, but they still think more controls are the answer.
Laws effect the law abiding!
Only law abiding people have registered their guns only. Law abiding people get proper permits. Our government, after six years and over a billion of our tax dollars, are still waiting for the first criminal to register his guns and get legal permits.
Criminals aren't affected by the laws, only the law abiding!
Getting tougher on law abiding Canadians isn't the answer! It's time they realized that they have to get tougher with the criminals!
Half a million handguns in Canada are owned by people for target shooting and personal protection - legally.
To confiscate these legal guns from honest people will only make the situation worse, as the only people left with handguns will be the criminals.
Remember - they never registered their guns, so they are in no danger of having their guns confiscated.
Tougher penalties for violent crimes is the answer.
Laws only affect the law abiding.
Respectfully,
Colin Waugh, Olalla
Dear Editor;
RE: The two percent solution
Despite tremendous public pressure, strong polling, and a full slate of candidates in the 2004 federal election, the Green Party of Canada has again been excluded from the nationally-televised leaders' debate.
Bill C-24 which was passed by Parliament in 2003, allots $1.75 per vote to all federal parties that achieve 2 per cent or more of the national popular vote. The only fair solution is to include any leader from any political party that wins two per cent of the vote in the previous general election.
Because any party that earns two per cent of the vote is receiving federal money and if taxpayers can finance a political party, they have a right to hear from them in the Leaders' Debate.
In 2004, the Green Party fielded a full slate of 308 candidates and achieved 4.3 per cent of the vote. How significant is this? In the 2000 federal election, only the Liberal Party of Canada ran candidates in every riding.
Neither the Canadian Alliance, nor the Progressive Conservatives, nor the NDP - and certainly not the Bloc Québécois - were capable of running full slates.
Despite this in 2004, the broadcast consortium first told the Green Party of Canada that the party was excluded from the debate because they did not have official party status, then because they had never held official party status, and finally because they did not hold a seat.
However, each of these excuses has been overlooked by the consortium and their provincial broadcast partners in the past.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois participated in both the French and English debates even though they ran only 75 candidates, had never elected a sitting member (Gilles Duceppe had been elected as an independent), and had not been officially recognized by the Speaker prior to dissolution.
Ironically, over 22 million voters still hear from the separatist Bloc in each debate, despite not having the chance to vote for it.
The Reform Party did not win a seat in the 1988 election and won less than half of the Green Party's 2004 total vote in that election. Yet, Preston Manning was included in the 1993 debate on the basis of the 11,154 votes Deborah Grey won in a 1989 by-election with a 47 per cent turnout. In 1993, they ran only 207 candidates.
At the provincial level, BC Liberal Leader Gordon Wilson participated in the 1991 Leaders' Debate even though his party held no seats as did BC Green Party leader Adriane Carr in both 2001 and 2005, again without seats in the legislature. Comparable participation has occurred in New Brunswick and PEI.
Clearly, the rules change to suit the broadcast consortium's prevailing mood.
But finding your way into the leaders' debate shouldn't depend on your ability to win a single riding in a by-election when most voters don't choose to vote.
The consortium also cited the "large number of political parties contesting the 2004 federal election" as a reason to exclude the Green Party from participating in the debate and that five leaders would be unwieldy.
However, in 1993, 1997 and 2000 five leaders were involved in the televised debates. Evidently, at least five parties can fit in the studio as they did in 1993, 1997 and 2000.
A sense of fair play - not to mention democratic equity and precedence - suggests that a spot is now open for a new national leader to join the debate.
Five parties received over two per cent of the vote in 2004 and all five should appear in the 2005 debate.
In a landmark 2003 ruling that struck down three sections of the Canada Elections Act, the Supreme Court of Canada argued that political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions and a social policy sensitive to the needs and interests of a broad range of citizens, and that participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of the outcome of elections.
The justices also said that, large or small, all political parties are capable of introducing unique interests and concerns into the political discourse.
In 1997, the Supreme Court rules that "Elections are fair and equitable only if all citizens are reasonably informed of all the possible choices and if parties and candidates are given a reasonable opportunity to present their positions."
There are several reasons for the Green Party's emergence as "the new kid on the block" in Canadian politics. One is the deep dissatisfaction Canadians feel towards Canada's traditional political parties.
Nearly 8.8 million eligible Canadians (39.1 per cent) didn't cast a ballot in the 2004 election. Their choice resulted in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. In fact, more people didn't vote than voted in all of the other provinces and territories combined, except for Ontario. Across Canada, voter turnout hit worrisome lows.
Ridings like Westmount-Ville Marie, where only 52.3 per cent of voters chose to participate, York West where 48.5 per cent voted, Winnipeg Centre where 45.1 per cent cast a ballot, and down to a nation-wide low of 41.4 per cent in Churchill, Manitoba. In 2004, the three old-line parties won one million less votes than they did in 1984, despite 5.7 million new voters.
Even more troubling is the political disengagement of young voters. According to Elections Canada, only 22 per cent of voters aged 18-24 came out to vote in the last federal election. There are nearly 2.6 million Canadians in this age group. Even the old-line parties agree this spells trouble for the future of democracy in Canada.
This is a time in Canadian history when voters are desperate for alternatives.
Disillusioned with traditional political parties, they are looking for new approaches to the chronic problems facing Canada.
It's why the Green Party voice must be heard in this election's four debates.
Join the thousands of Canadians who are opposed to the consortium's decision by signing our on-line petition at www.greenparty.ca.
- Scott Leyland,
Green Party Candidate
Southern Interior BC
