Shots Fired On Parliament Hill

[Guest]

gee you're clever! I also mentioned the guy's long history of substance abuse, homelessness, petty crime, joblessness... you can stuff your curt dismissal of a legitimate question/thought as to, effectively, what level of desperation brings someone to the point of so-called "self-radicalization". In my broad summation of the guy, I purposely left out any questioning of his mental faculties... since todate, I've personally not read/heard anything in that regard.

Man, I hope all the other people with no prospects, who are homeless, jobless, and indulge in petty crime and substance abuse don't decide to go off shooting people, or we're screwed.

You stuff it.

[Derek 2.0]

I recall reading in the media blitz, court documents obtained (by CBC IIRC) showed that he was given a mental assessment prior to one of his latter (Robbery/uttering threats?) trials, and determined mentally fit.

Google-fu

The psychiatrist, who met with Zehaf-Bibeau at the Surrey Pre-TrialCentre, found that he was fit to stand trial, and explained some of Zehaf-Bibeau's motivation for wanting to be imprisoned.

[Guest]

Reaching out to citizens is always a good idea, but the real key here is stop killing muslims on the other side of the world. If we keep doing that, theres absolutely no doubt these kinds of problems are going to get much worse.

I think it would be key if Muslims stopped killing Muslims on the other side of the world.

[Guest]

Yes they are. To really have free speech you need to be able to choose the audience. If the government has a microphone in your house and is recording everthing you say to possibly use against you, then most people are not going to speak "freely".

Surveillance ends up having the same impact on speech as censorship. You cant separate those two concepts.

If you want to self censor because you are afraid of what the government might do, then the speech you are planning probably falls outside of those boundaries set by the government, that you probably (I think), agree with. Incitement to violence, libel, etc. I agree that there are some government departments or organizations that would restrict freedom of speech based on offensiveness, but that's just something we have to fight against.

I don't think it's worth allowing the former just to avoid being told off for the latter.

[dre]

You paranoid types with your desperate fear of the government. Just what is it you're doing, dre, that you think the government would have the least bit of interest in? Funding mideast groups by any chance?

Proponents of personal liberty and limited government are not necessarily afraid that the government is going to come after them personally. Theres nothing I do that would interest them all. I guess the main difference between you and I, is that I understand the importance of things like privacy, free speech, and limited government, and why they are crucial to the functioning of a free society and you dont. Theres plenty of places in the world where citizens dont have any of these rights... go live in one for a while and see whatcha think!

As far as calling me paranoid... Thats a little silly because you are proposing the expansion of police powers over a threat thats 1/7th as likely to kill you as being struck by lightening. Talk about paranoid.

[waldo]

Man, I hope all the other people with no prospects, who are homeless, jobless, and indulge in petty crime and substance abuse don't decide to go off shooting people, or we're screwed.

You stuff it.

whether you like to admit it or not, there are contributing influences. Apparently you prefer to ignore these (and other) factors and simply grunt out your, "let's kill all the muzzies", hey?

[The_Squid]

Reaching out to citizens is always a good idea, but the real key here is stop killing muslims on the other side of the world. If we keep doing that, theres absolutely no doubt these kinds of problems are going to get much worse.

Would not killing ISIS have stopped a mentally ill crack addict from killing someone? Perhaps they would have killed someone else for a different reason....

Indeed, I think positive engagement with the Muslim community by the Government is whats needed, with the understanding that it is a two-way street.......It is in the Muslim communities best interest to work with Government in routing out any radical, violent groups from within.

What do you think Mosques could do about a mentally ill crack addict?

Edited October 24, 2014 by The_Squid

[Guest]

grunt out your, "let's kill all the muzzies", hey?

Citation request.

[dre]

I agree that there are some government departments or organizations that would restrict freedom of speech based on offensiveness, but that's just something we have to fight against.

I would say that the entire concept of trading liberty for security is something we have to fight against... not just because its unreasonable, but because its just not true. From what I can tell, the countries where people have the most liberty, and the most checks and rules for government to follow are also the safest places to live.

So the entire proposition is false, and shouldnt be something any rational individual finds compelling.

[Derek 2.0]

What do you think Mosques could do about a mentally ill crack addict?

I think many differing religions, including Islam, offer programs to those with substance abuse problems.........As quoted in numerous media reports, Bibeau himself stated his turn to Islam had helped him contend with his drug related problems.

[dre]

Would not killing ISIS have stopped a mentally ill crack addict from killing someone? Perhaps they would have killed someone else for a different reason....

Thats a fair point... I have no evidence that our idiotic misadventures in the middle east are related to this at all. The timing sure makes it feel that way, but again... thats a fair point.

Edited October 24, 2014 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

I would say that the entire concept of trading liberty for security is something we have to fight against... not just because its unreasonable, but because its just not true. From what I can tell, the countries where people have the most liberty, and the most checks and rules for government to follow are also the safest places to live.

Countries such as?

[On Guard for Thee]

One nutbar with all the problems this guy seems to have had, and is now dead, is not enough reason to start chipping away everybody else's freedoms. Of course Harper will flog the "fear factor" as much as those gullible enough will allow, and try and translate it into votes. Just heard an interview with Steven Blainey and he's already trying to get that ball rolling. I just watched also the reinstatement of the guard at the cenotaph and there were tons of people out in the streets there. Didn't look like a particularly traumatized population to me. If you're scared and need to go hide under a rock, then go. I think I'll stay out here in the sunshine.

[waldo]

Citation request.

you appear completely dismissive of any suggestion that there might be root causes at play in contributing to so-called "self-radicalization" - yes?

[Guest]

I would say that the entire concept of trading liberty for security is something we have to fight against... not just because its unreasonable, but because its just not true. From what I can tell, the countries where people have the most liberty, and the most checks and rules for government to follow are also the safest places to live.

So the entire proposition is false, and shouldnt be something any rational individual finds compelling.

I disagree. There are many instances one can think of where liberty is traded for security. Obvious ones occur during times of natural disaster. The recent Ebola crisis has seen liberties curtailed. The trick is doing what is necessary and no more. I don't disagree that this can be abused, but I do give the government the right to do what it thinks is required to deal with issues, regardless of type.

[Guest]

you appear completely dismissive of any suggestion that there might be root causes at play in contributing to so-called "self-radicalization" - yes?

I also do not suggest we "kill all the muzzies".

Muzzies?

Of course there are factors, but let's not pretend that religious influence was not one of them.

[dre]

Countries such as?

Canada, Norway, Iceland, Newzealand to name a few.

[Derek 2.0]

Canada, Norway, Iceland, Newzealand to name a few.

Such countries don't have laws that some would consider curtailing "Freedoms"?

[dre]

The trick is doing what is necessary and no more.

I like the balance we have struck. The government has emergency powers and broad law enforcement powers already. Crime rates are low, violent crime is receding... terrorism is a statistical non-threat.

We dont need knee-jerk legislation in response to one-off events, especially since, like I said its a slippery slope. And like I also said, a less confrontational foreign policy would do a lot more to keep us safe in the long run than the government reading our emails or listening to our phonecalls anyways.

[guyser]

Such countries don't have laws that some would consider curtailing "Freedoms"?

Put it that way then there isnt a country on earth that doesnt.

[dre]

Such countries don't have laws that some would consider curtailing "Freedoms"?

All laws curtail freedoms to some degree. I never said they didnt have laws that curtail freedoms.

What I said is the link between liberty and security is for the most part illusory. Powerful militaristic, security obsessed governments dont make their citizens safer they put them in danger.

And so far I havent seen any substantive argument in favor of explanding the power of the governments security apparatus at all. Does the threat of terrorism justify the erosion of civil liberties? In order to make that judgement you would have to do some real analysis on how much of a threat is really is. The only quantitative analysis I have found is from the FBI in the US says that terrorism is 1/7th as likely to kill you as a lightening strike.

The problem is, its an easy threat to emotionalize, and it conjured up a lot of paranoia, and makes the population fear-dumb. This is a bad time to make decisions on our liberties that we might be stuck with for a long time, and quite frankly the current government hasnt shown much capacity for rational thought.

The other problem I have is this... We already have an extremely powerfull and well equipped security apparatus. In these recent cases they simply shat the bed, and didnt even use the tools they have. It might be hard to throw someone in jail without proof beyond a reasonable doubt but the burden to obtain a court order that would give police the authorization to put someone under extremely close surveillance (tap phone, read mail, bug house, bug car) is much lower. The burden there is simply reasonable suspicion.

Edited October 24, 2014 by dre

[waldo]

Of course there are factors, but let's not pretend that religious influence was not one of them.

if you accept there are 'factors' why were you so dismissive/demeaning (twice) in how 'some of those factors' were mentioned as possible contributors towards the so-called self-radicalization?

[Guest]

if you accept there are 'factors' why were you so dismissive/demeaning (twice) in how 'some of those factors' were mentioned as possible contributors towards the so-called self-radicalization?

My interpretation of your original post was that these were major factors in the fellows decision to do what he did, as opposed to minor contributors when compared to religious influences.

I consider being told to stuff my opinions dismissive and demeaning, and I certainly consider being accused of incitement to religious genocide to be the same.

[Argus]

We have always had bigoted fear mongers and will continue to have them. This board is no exception.

We can always build on this xenophobia.

First we get the people really riled up so that we can get somebody really strong to head our government and slowly allow him as much power as he needs. Then we can force those who are Muslims to wear the star and crescent badges on their shirts. Then we paint those stars and crescents on their houses and businesses so the "good" people will know who they are. Then we take over their businesses, homes and assets and we could round them up into groups and place them into concentration camps. Then we could .....

We are supposed to learn from the mistakes of history.

Yeah, we learned not to do all that stuff you're being hysterical about us doing.

[Argus]

Proponents of personal liberty and limited government are not necessarily afraid that the government is going to come after them personally. Theres nothing I do that would interest them all. I guess the main difference between you and I, is that I understand the importance of things like privacy, free speech, and limited government, and why they are crucial to the functioning of a free society and you dont.

I'm quite attached to the notion of privacy, actually, and free speech -- within limits. As to limited government, well, I am conservative, something you're NOT, so I have my doubts about just how attached to limited government you are.

But CSIS scanning the electronic airwaves for terrorists or terrorist sympathizers doesn't unduly concern me. And don't we have laws against hate speech already that all the lefty types love? This would simply expand them a bit.