WWWTT Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 New term coming out of this is "Radicalized" Ok then, so who wants the first go in defining what this means. Soft terrorism? Terrorism light? I thought Harper and his government were radicalized? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Sure, but by the same token, such new laws put in place (revoking passports & citizenship) were opposed by the Trudeau Liberals several months ago........ What does taking his passport accomplish in a situation where (s)he wants to attack a target within Canada? What does revoking his citizenship accomplish since he was if I'm not mistaking born in Canada? Neither one of those laws would accomplish much in the way of prevention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 What does taking his passport accomplish in a situation where (s)he wants to attack a target within Canada? What does revoking his citizenship accomplish since he was if I'm not mistaking born in Canada? Neither one of those laws would accomplish much in the way of prevention. In this case, little to nothing........but, could prevent (as mentioned by Argus) others from going overseas and receiving training in bomb making etc, then returning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Actually I don't really care. Keep milking this gift because not many come by in Canada. So let me ask you something, how many press releases and interviews will the conservatives do covering this story. 60? 70? WWWTT We'll oblige you and talk about yet another terrorist incident apparently linked to one particular religion.What are you afraid to hear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 So, in your view, what would be a reasonable response? Change/alter/remove/strengthen laws to aid the likes of the CSIS/RCMP/CBSA etc in surveilling and prosecuting such threats, or would you prefer rounding up all such suspects with the army as done by a previous Liberal Government? Or somewhere in between? A reasonable response would be to avoid any knee-jerk reactions to problems so statistically small they are barely even problems. Law enforcement has all the powers they need, and homicide and violent crime are trending downward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 A reasonable response would be to avoid any knee-jerk reactions to problems so statistically small they are barely even problems. Law enforcement has all the powers they need, and homicide and violent crime are trending downward. So, in effect, ignore it and continue on as currently.......Politically, I don't think any of the mainstream parties will be able to do such as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 So, in effect, ignore it and continue on as currently.......Politically, I don't think any of the mainstream parties will be able to do such as you suggest. Equate Terrorism to treason, you get yourself involved with terrorism and then want to come home you have to serve time in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Equate Terrorism to treason, you get yourself involved with terrorism and then want to come home you have to serve time in prison. How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to charge them on their return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to charge them on their return? How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to revoke their citizenship/passport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 So, in effect, ignore it and continue on as currently.......Politically, I don't think any of the mainstream parties will be able to do such as you suggest. Not ignore it... we already have law enforcement working on these types of issues, and from what I understand they have a broad array of tools in their toolbox, and a pretty good record. I think you have a point though... our citizens are so irrational that rational responses to these kinds of things might not be politically viable. Its kindoff embarrasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to charge them on their return?I would guess the same way they do with other crimes commited outside Canada but prosecuted here in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to revoke their citizenship/passport? Why would we want to? Canada should not try to extend its laws beyond our own borders. If we have an extradition treaty with the country where the person is alledged to have committed such a crime, then we could turn suspects over to the government for trial... but we really should not be trying to enforce our laws outside our own borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Why would we want to? Canada should not try to extend its laws beyond our own borders. If we have an extradition treaty with the country where the person is alledged to have committed such a crime, then we could turn suspects over to the government for trial... but we really should not be trying to enforce our laws outside our own borders. Yeah but that is the whole point of the legislation that is being presented to prevent terrorism… by revoking passports we essentially leave our trash in countries that can ill afford to have said trash, and by revoking citizenship we create a two tiered citizenship basically saying if you are Canadian you are our problem, but if you are "Canadian" then you are not. We need to walk a tight rope for this, if we erode our own right in order to guarantee more safety in the short term we could end up hurting ourselves in the long run. We need strengthened laws and more power to the police but it needs to be balanced by the need to remain true to ourselves, by this I mean we need to give the powers and strengthen our laws but we should not erode our rights and freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 How would one prove a suspect, that traveled overseas was involved directly with "terrorism" so as to revoke their citizenship/passport? I would assume the RCMP's ability to investigate a suspect is diminished once they're in the hinterland of Syria or Iraq..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I would guess the same way they do with other crimes commited outside Canada but prosecuted here in Canada? Does the RCMP have a working relationship with law enforcement in ISIS controlled areas of Iraq or Syria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I would assume the RCMP's ability to investigate a suspect is diminished once they're in the hinterland of Syria or Iraq..... Thereby making that half-assed solution even more useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Not ignore it... we already have law enforcement working on these types of issues, and from what I understand they have a broad array of tools in their toolbox, and a pretty good record. Yet law enforcement is calling for both additional legal powers and resources..... I think you have a point though... our citizens are so irrational that rational responses to these kinds of things might not be politically viable. Its kindoff embarrasing. No different than Ebola, mass shootings, childhood obesity etc etc..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thereby making that half-assed solution even more useless. By preventing said person of interest from going overseas, we increase the difficulty of the RCMP to further investigate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 By preventing said person of interest from going overseas, we increase the difficulty of the RCMP to further investigate? By revoking passport while person is overseas we leave our trash to be taken care by others. By revoking citizenships for immigrants we do more damage to our citizenship as a whole then we prevent terrorist attacks etc… there is a way to make us safer without belittling the our own citizens or leaving other to deal with our problems. And preventing him from leaving the country sure saved us from an attack… right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 By revoking passport while person is overseas we leave our trash to be taken care by others. By revoking citizenships for immigrants we do more damage to our citizenship as a whole then we prevent terrorist attacks etc… there is a way to make us safer without belittling the our own citizens or leaving other to deal with our problems. And preventing him from leaving the country sure saved us from an attack… right? In this case, and as reported, a number of passports have been revoked prior to them leaving the country............again, as mentioned, such measures didn't prevent this case, but in a case like the Boston bombings as speculated or members of the PIRA, some travel overseas to expand their ability to conduct such attacks on their return home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Jeez instead of taking away his passport they should have let him go off to Iraq and get blown away there. Paid for his plane ticket and everything. I agree. There are over a million Ukrainians and about 500,000 Russians in Canada. When that "conflict" began in Eastern Ukraine, a number of Canadians left Canada to fight - for both sides. No one stopped them but let them go. People have a right to leave Canada for any reason they want but we have the right to allow (or not) them back into Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 This incident certainly has a lot of different angles and issues. I will go on a different tangent; A person drives a car into two people in a mall in a small town in Ontario. The person leaves the scene of the accident and is pursued by the police. The driver flips the car and exits the car with a knife. That person is killed by (5 or more) bullets by the police. Looks like Martin Couture Rouleau took a knife to a gunfight or the police took a gun to a knife fight. I have seen a number of incidents of police fatal shooting discussed here where it was always questioned why gunfire by the police was used. I wonder if this question will also be discussed in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I agree. There are over a million Ukrainians and about 500,000 Russians in Canada. When that "conflict" began in Eastern Ukraine, a number of Canadians left Canada to fight - for both sides. No one stopped them but let them go. People have a right to leave Canada for any reason they want but we have the right to allow (or not) them back into Canada. Do/did any of those Ukrainians or Russians pose a threat to Canadians? On the inverse, many of the radical communists that left Canada to fight in the Spanish civil war were monitored for decades by the RCMP.......clearly such things should be viewed on a case by case basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Looks like Martin Couture Rouleau took a knife to a gunfight or the police took a gun to a knife fight. I have seen a number of incidents of police fatal shooting discussed here where it was always questioned why gunfire by the police was used. I wonder if this question will also be discussed in this case. One of the officers witnessed the attack, and as reported, Rouleau, well being chased by the police, contacted the 911 dispatcher confirming his motives and guilt........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Yeah but that is the whole point of the legislation that is being presented to prevent terrorism… by revoking passports we essentially leave our trash in countries that can ill afford to have said trash, and by revoking citizenship we create a two tiered citizenship basically saying if you are Canadian you are our problem, but if you are "Canadian" then you are not. We need to walk a tight rope for this, if we erode our own right in order to guarantee more safety in the short term we could end up hurting ourselves in the long run. We need strengthened laws and more power to the police but it needs to be balanced by the need to remain true to ourselves, by this I mean we need to give the powers and strengthen our laws but we should not erode our rights and freedoms. We need strengthened laws and more power to the police but it needs to be balanced by the need to remain true to ourselves, by this I mean we need to give the powers and strengthen our laws but we should not erode our rights and freedoms. Why do we need strengthened laws? Nobody has made a compelling case for that yet IMO. And if you are worried about the erosion of our rights and freedoms the thing you should fear most is the government crafting legislation in knee-jerk reaction to extremely rare events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.