turningrite

My point, of course, if you actually read my posts, is that at this point there's absolutely no officially confirmed evidence of ANYTHING to substantiate ANY narrative. So, why is the mental illness narrative assumed to be valid when emerging leaks suggest there may be a much more disturbing aspect to the story? Isn't your approach an example of wishful and uncritical thinking? My guess is that the alleged leaks suggest growing frustration on the part of some officials that important information is being withheld from the public. That's a pretty normal assumption when such leaks emerge. Why did the AP/CBS information get little play in Canadian media outlets? Why are more mainstream media investigators and reporters, who seem to be coming to realization that evidence is being withheld and/or manipulated, not speaking out in the fashion that an obviously frustrated Candice Malcolm of the Toronto Sun has? Are jobs on the line? Who knows, but this debacle appears to illustrate the sorry state of Canada's "free press" in the post-M-103 era. If this is the best our public officials and mainstream media can do, we no longer live in an actual democracy. The apparent political/media suppression to date of details about this event has become the emerging story, which unfortunately undermines the respect deserved by the true victims, those who were shot and killed on the Danforth.

Well, now we're seeing the Doug Ford many of thought would emerge. He's taking the axe to Toronto city council, reducing the number of wards from 47 to 25, and cancelling the regional chair elections in Peel and York. There will be a lot of unhappy campers at city hall, for sure. I'm wondering if this is also intended as a warning shot to Tory not to undermine Ford's position on the illegal/irregular migrant crisis? Tory has been negotiating separately with the federal government to resolve the refugee claimant housing crisis, with the result that many of the migrants will soon be housed in hotels. Meanwhile, our growing horde of homeless get sleeping bags and maybe a cot in a church basement on cold nights, if they're lucky. It's quite a contrast. A friend who didn't support Ford's Conservatives in the election is now saying he's quickly warming to him. I believe Ford's "I'm in charge here" move will have broader repercussions.

Did you read the Deutsche Welle piece? It looks like the Europeans played Trump like a fiddle, as per the following excerpt: "Yes, a few concessions were made. The EU will import more liquefied natural gas from the US, as well as more soybeans and other agricultural commodities. This is the part of the EU-US "deal" that Trump will present to his supporters as a major victory. And with respect to negotiations on a free trade agreement for industrial products, which Trump put into play a few days ago via Twitter, he will say: Look here, I forced the Europeans to the negotiating table." Clearly, the Europeans understand Trump's political difficulties at home and made a couple small concessions to allow him to save face. We all know that the narcissistic Trump needs to be able to claim victory even where no victory has occurred. Too bad for Americans that they'll be eaten alive if they imagine Trump to be their savior. Maybe he can negotiate a real estate or casino deal, or arrange coverups for his sordid personal dalliances (it seems he has little self-control where his personal behavior is concerned, which is quite sad), but in international affairs he's simply mismatched. The "Putin's Poodle" debacle in Helsinki may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Read my response to Michael Hardner's post before making up your mind. Leaks have emerged from inside the investigation suggesting that the situation may be much more complicated than the "mental illness" explanation accommodates. You and some other commenters on here seem to think that anybody who doesn't accept the mental illness explanation, which by the way has been confirmed by none of the relevant authorities, has an agenda and that those who accept the unconfirmed mental illness narrative are somehow more informed and enlightened than those who don't. Your "based on what I've read" rationale provides evidence of nothing in this case as it's been a largely speculative narrative from the get-go. Further, twenty percent of the population suffer mental illness at some point in their lives and there's anecdotal evidence that Mr. Hussain recently seemed quite stable. You seem to be operating on quite the double standard, if you ask me, where speculation about mental illness is portrayed as amounting to credible evidence and granting slowly emerging facts increasing weight is somehow construed as proof of discreditable motivation.

1.) There you go again with another gratuitous critique. It's getting tiresome. And I think you're only looking for information that suits your perspective. As I believe I've said before, your approach is consistent with what's called "bias confirmation." As per the link I provided, (if you read the piece), concern is growing about what the police and public officials actually know and are disclosing and why they and mainly compliant mainstream media outlets have permitted a narrative about mental illness, for which there is no clear confirmation, to emerge in place of the public being provided actual information. It seems pretty likely to an objective observer that the story is being spun. 2.) I believe the NP piece you cite mainly addresses the ISIS claim, which has been widely discredited as ISIS is for practical purposes, even if not symbolically, a spent force. Oddly new information that appears to be emerging about the Danforth investigation is getting little play in Canadian media. An AP report, which includes information obtained by a CBS News investigator (credible enough for you?), suggests the shooter's background may be more problematic than many mainstream Canadian outlets are willing to contemplate or, apparently, report. Below is excerpt from text of and a link to the AP article that appears on the iheartradio website. Obviously, an extremist motive may still apply even if ISIS had nothing in particular to do with this. AP gets this, and it's undoubtedly the kind of slowly emerging information Ms. Malcolm's Toronto Sun opinion piece addresses. Sometimes things are complicated, and especially so when the authorities seem intent on suppressing facts. Investigators in Canada have indications that Faisal Hussain visited Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) websites and may have expressed support for the terrorist group, a law enforcement source told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton. Investigators are looking into whether Hussain may have lived at one time in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, the source said. There is no indication that Hussain was directed by ISIS to carry out the attack. http://www.iheartradio.ca/newstalk-1010/news/report-danforth-shooter-may-have-visited-isis-websites-lived-in-afghanistan-1.4200280

The German news outlet Deutsche Welle reports that Trump caved in to end a tariff war he started against the EU. It's too funny, really. Does he have any idea how overmatched he is? Apparently, he was facing too much criticism of his trade policies from Congress as well as among his own supporters, particularly in the Midwest, and pulled the plug before suffering any further political damage so close to the midterms. So, blowback forced his hand. Welcome to the real world Mr. Trump! https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-eu-solidarity-successful-against-donald-trump/a-44828078

And do you have any evidence that any of this applies to Mr. Hussain? Do you know something about him that the rest of us do not? I strongly suspect you don't. It's all speculation at this point. I think you've been sucked in by a media narrative that in its own right appears to be weakening with each passing day. Perhaps you should read Candice Malcolm's column in today's Toronto Sun, 'Media spin on Danforth shooting is troubling', wherein the author states: "Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness."

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in the spring I believe 48% of respondents favored immediate deportation of the illegal/irregular migrants and 36% favored permitting them to stay. When Doug Ford demanded that the federal government pick up all the cost for this fiasco I believe polling indicated overwhelming support among Ontarians for Ford's position. And that view is probably echoed across the country. There is an elite political consensus on immigration-related issues at the federal level - well, with reservations expressed by some Conservatives - but there's a lot more skepticism in the broader population. At some point, one has to believe, voters will get to express their displeasure and hopefully our feckless federal politicians will hear the message loudly and clearly.

You have no idea about any of this, do you? It's not worth responding to you because you're not interested in facts or rational debate.

Are you a troll? You seem obsessed with trying to cast rational analysis as conspiracy theory. I suspect you understand my arguments but have no good counterarguments to provide. Perhaps before making gratuitous swipes about conspiracy theories you might read Candice Malcolm's column in today's Toronto Sun, 'Media spin on Danforth shooting is troubling', wherein the author states: "Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness." Ouch!

I'd prefer secularism. My father viewed religious chauvinism, including public displays of religion, as detrimental to social equality and as time passes I increasingly tend to agree with him. Personally, many of the accoutrements of religion, like wearing the hijab, kippah or crucifix don't bother me. But some others do. So, in order to be fair, I think a secularist ban, as in France, to be a fair an equitable solution.

A news broadcast last night shed a bit more light on this in revealing that after making comments about violence to a teacher the police detailed Mr. Hussain under the provisions of the province's Mental Health Act. It's my understanding that those so detained are kept in a hospital or mental health facility for a period of up to three days to assess whether a mental illness that poses a risk to the person detained or the public applies. There was no indication of the outcome of the assessment nor have I heard or read anything to indicate that Mr. Hussain was at that time or any other diagnosed with and/or treated for a serious mental illness. But because such information is inherently private he may have been. I believe, then, that the mental illness explanation remains speculative.

1.) This, conveniently, is your opinion. 2.) I believe you're incorrect. It's my understanding that planning and premeditation are generally held to suggest that a person is not acting in an irrational or disorganized fashion and undermines a defense grounded in not being criminally responsible due to a mental defect. The standard defining those held not to be criminally responsible due to mental defect is actually quite difficult to meet. You seem to suggest there is little or no delineation whatsoever between mental illness and criminal responsibility, which is simply not the case. 3.) So, you have no actual training in mental health issues, as I suspected to be the case. Most of us know or have known people with mental health problems. You seem to have missed the point that most of those who suffer mental illness do not commit crimes and even fewer commit serious crimes and by conflating mental illness with a lack of criminal responsibility I believe you are serving to stereotype and stigmatize the mentally ill. 4.) You seem to be pursuing an agenda by arguing that those who challenge the mental health explanation that's been communicated thus far by media outlets are operating on anti-Muslim motives. Some may be, but others have simply and fairly pointed to the differential treatment accorded this incident and perpetrator by public officials and the media, particularly in comparison to other recent events like the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Yonge St. van massacre. The salient concerns that apply are why this incident appears to have been handled with kid gloves and whether this is part of a broader political/social agenda to manage or manipulate public opinion. As more information slowly becomes available, some media outlets are now changing their approach and pointing out that the mental health explanation is essentially speculative. In a democracy, a skeptical public is a wise public.

The jury is out on whether he's just another American president. He seems intent on blowing everything up, fancying himself the great disruptor, so to speak. He doesn't seem to feel bound by the informal rules of moderation and decency that have governed the behavior of most U.S. presidents. He has mused about his admiration for presidential dictatorships, something I don't think any previous American president has done. (To be fair, our own PM seems to have a soft spot for some dictatorships as well, but he has far less global reach or importance than does an American president.) My read is that Trump is a self-serving and self-aggrandizing narcissist who's figured out how to employ the hyperpartisan political climate that now exists in the U.S. to serve his own personal interests and to impose his preferred agendas. In a broader context, what Trump is doing, and perhaps in so doing is performing a service to his countrymen (countrypeople?), is demonstrating that the unique system of checks and balances put in place by the republic's founders is vulnerable. It probably always has been vulnerable, but Trump is proving the point.

I think you're misreading the tenor of the concerns expressed on this topic, which is that many believe officials may be withholding crucial information and that in the vacuum that's been created media outlets are imposing a narrative about mental illness that may or may not be credible. We know that all too often in this country an elite consensus rather than evidence drives public perception, so we've justifiably become cynics.

I believe that freedom from religion is more important to the integrity of a diverse and democratic society. Even my late father, a devout Catholic throughout his life, became an avowed secularist. He believed that religion should be a completely private matter and that secularism would do nothing to compromise a person's right to their own beliefs and their ability to privately practice their own religion. He became convinced of the value of secularism from the perspective of being a member of a religion, Catholicism, that was the target of discrimination in pre-WWII Orange Order Protestant small-town Ontario. He also came to believe, eventually, that the separate (Catholic) school system should be abolished in the cause of achieving a secular society.

I don't know whether the police, Trudeau or anybody else is necessarily certain of the shooter's motives at this point. I listened to a public security expert who when interviewed on a news broadcast this evening admitted that it's possible the shooter was motivated by terrorism without being associated with a specific terrorist group. It's been reported on the CBC website that ammunition for an assault rifle (which wasn't the kind of weapon used in the shooting) was found in the shooter's apartment. According to the CBC piece (link below), their "sources spoke on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation." And the shooter's brother, who is in a coma, was reportedly involved in gang activity. The family, which has raised mental health as an explanation for the shooter's actions, reportedly denies knowledge of their other son's activities. Hmmm... So, there's probably a lot more going on here than we're being told. I concur with your concern about plausible deniability. and like many on here am surprised and somewhat alarmed that officials seem to be operating on a 'move on, there's nothing interesting to see here' basis. Maybe we're too familiar with the kind of explicit, immediate and forthright disclosure and reporting approach we see in the U.S., but if this is so I actually prefer the American model, as I suspect do many other Canadians. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/danforth-gunman-suicide-1.4761775

How would a Muslim or anybody else know what kind of laws or regulations a government might impose in the Queen's name? After all, the Harper government, with widespread public support, attempted to ban Muslim women from wearing the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. Personally, although raised a Catholic, I'm a secularist and humanist, although not explicitly an atheist, and it's not inconceivable that Canadians might at some point elect a government that supports a secular philosophy and is prepared to implement a secular regime. Maybe atheists will lead us out of the darkness. Maybe we'll be finished with the royal oath. Oh, to dream of a better world...

It's my impression that many people just believe that all politicians and political parties are the same and that it's pointless to worry about it because nothing will change in any case. Many people are more motivated to vote against a leader or party than anything else. In the last election, I couldn't support Harper anymore but thought Trudeau a dolt and a phony, so I reluctantly voted for the NDP candidate in my riding, whom I quite admired. I think we need proportional representation combined with more direct democracy allowing us an actual say on controversial matters. Trudeau theatrically promised electoral reform and I didn't believe for a moment that he'd follow through. But some people I know did. And look at what happened. Is it any wonder that so many are completely cynical and tune the whole thing out?

I often think about this as well when considering all the immigrants Canada has admitted who belong to religions that are intolerant of apostates. Do they not understand that when they become Canadian citizens they take an oath of allegiance to a person who is explicitly and legally the head of the Church of England?

Do you have a right to American citizenship, such as having a parent born and raised in that country. American citizenship is actually more difficult to obtain than is Canadian citizenship. And there are obligations and drawbacks too, as American citizens living outside the U.S. are required to file an annual tax return with the IRS and for the past decade or more to file an annual assets report as well. Even if one doesn't formally apply for U.S. citizenship, a birthright citizen is still considered by the U.S. government to be a U.S. "person" and is theoretically subject to the obligations applicable to that status. A Canadian-American dual citizen living outside the U.S. can only abandon their U.S. obligations by renouncing their U.S. citizenship, which is a lengthy and expensive process. There's no equivalent to ease and speed with which Ted Cruz was able to jettison his Canadian citizenship. So, do you still want to become a dual citizen?

I have no idea why it was sent to the CBC. And although I feel sorry for the shooter's family members, I find it quite bizarre that they and/or their advocates so quickly and publicly asserted their interpretation of events. In media terms, I guess, this is considered "getting ahead of the story" but I can't think of another recent case where this has happened. You'd think media in Canada would be more careful about this kind of thing after being manipulated in other cases, including the story about the young girl who had reportedly been attacked for wearing a hijab, which turned out to be hoax.

Perhaps I missed a comma or committed a grammatical error in my lack of clarity, but the meaning the sentence intends to convey is relatively clear to most readers. If an act has in fact been thought out and planned it's quite likely that mental illness, if it does apply at all, is likely a contributory rather than causal factor. But I think you're gratuitously playing "silly buggers" here rather than trying to make a rational point. So, maybe you should try to be a little more thoughtful and maybe a little less a d**k. Do you have any background or training in the field of mental illness? If not, you have no business making such a statement any more than do unqualified media commentators who have speculated that mental illness is the likely cause of this incident. Oh, by the way, I do have mental health training and as such i'm aware that it's virtually impossible (and is generally considered irresponsible) to assess a mental illness without direct contact with a person who is believed to be exhibiting symptoms of such. So, I wouldn't assume the shooter suffered an acute current mental illness because I never met him, and I'm also skeptical of believing explanations based on what are essentially vicarious and speculative amateur psychological assessments.

I believe a significant proportion of dual citizens have two passports and because Canada broadly permits dual citizenship many immigrants and their children hold dual passports. My mother was an immigrant from the U.S. and when my sister moved south (she was part of the management team) when her employer transferred its operations to the U.S. in the aftermath of Mulroney's "free trade" deal she applied for status as a birthright U.S. citizen and therefore didn't have to acquire a visa or green card to live and work ther. But my mother couldn't just register my sister as a U.S. citizen as she had to register all her natural children on the application. And I was advised to apply for a U.S. passport (as proof of citizenship) and a Social Security Number. Also, I think many non-Western countries don't recognize the foreign status of their own citizens who emigrate and acquire naturalized citizenship elsewhere, rendering it necessary for them to maintain a passport for their country of origin. And many immigrants and their children choose to do so in any case as it affords them greater ability to more easily take advantage of employment, property ownership and other opportunities that are in some places dependent on citizenship.

I don't think the CBC has been alone in this approach, although by yesterday other news outlets were addressing statements made by people who said they didn't think the Danforth shooter was exhibiting overt signs of mental illness. Obviously, there appear to have been indications of mental illness in his past, to the extent that the police were aware of this. It might be too early to assess whether it was a hate crime, but it's not unreasonable for Canadians to demand that public officials tell us everything they know. Just because he wasn't on CSIS' radar or known to be an active member of a identifiable and problematic group doesn't mean he might not have been radicalized in some fashion or have independently acted on some grudge, in which case one suspects evidence of such a motive will at some point be discovered by the relevant authorities. I just don't think we should rule things out at this point, or blithely chalk the incident up to mental illness, as doing either is a disservice to the broader public interest.