Bill C-51: Federal Anti-Terror Legislation polling results

[Derek 2.0]

Interesting.

Glad no one was hurt.

So these would be considered 'terrorist' acts against ... infrastructure? ... economic security?

Wait ... doesn't 'terrorism' have to create widespread fear, terror in the public?

Can it be terrorism if it doesn't terrify the public?

Enrages some perhaps, police included.

But that's not terrorism.

What "political" aims? Don't see that here.

Obstruction perhaps ... but 'terrorism' is very farfetched.

.

Yes they are considered terrorist acts.....per the criminal code:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed

  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

  • ( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

• (ii) that intentionally

  • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

  • ( endangers a person’s life,

  • © causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

  • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©, or

  • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©,

If such “politically active groups” spike trees or sabotage equipment (in such a way to make it unsafe), or blow-up oil and gas pipelines and facilities, it is by the definition of the current Criminal Code terrorism…….inversely if another group chains themselves to trees or blocks road access to facilities, for example, it’s not terrorism…….

Edited February 20, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[jacee]

<p>

Yes they are considered terrorist acts.....per the criminal code:

If such politically active groups spike trees or sabotage equipment (in such a way to make it unsafe), or blow-up oil and gas pipelines and facilities, it is by the definition of the current Criminal Code terrorism.inversely if another group chains themselves to trees or blocks road access to facilities, for example, its not terrorism.

That's ridiculous Derek.

In no way do any of the incidents you linked qualify as terrorism under any of the criminal code clauses you posted.

.

[Derek 2.0]

That's ridiculous Derek.

In no way do any of the incidents you linked qualify as terrorism under any of the criminal code clauses you posted.

.

They sure do, even in my prior examples I linked for you, the tree spiking of Grouse Mountain was not only labelled terrorism by local government, but by Greenpeace!!!!

You want to politically protest resource based industries in the post 9/11 environment, chain yourself to something or play bongo drums in the middle of the road......if you start blowing up pipelines or doing such acts that threaten the lives of Canadian forestry/O&G workers, you will be treated as a terrorist..........PET had no problem deploying the army after all during the FLQ crisis for a group that started off torching mailboxes....

[jacee]

They sure do, even in my prior examples I linked for you, the tree spiking of Grouse Mountain was not only labelled terrorism by local government, but by Greenpeace!!!!

Ya there was that 'tactics' disagreement between Greenpeace and Paul Watson.

The tree spiking ... they left signs saying what had been done, so no workers were at risk, and there is no way it caused terror in the public. Ridiculous.

To review:

( an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,

NO. It was a very practical cause - saving the trees.

and

( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada,

NO

and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

( endangers a persons life,

© causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

NO

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©, or

NO

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©,

NO

NONE of those apply Derek.

......

You want to politically protest resource based industries in the post 9/11 environment, chain yourself to something or play bongo drums in the middle of the road......if you start blowing up pipelines or doing such acts that threaten the lives of Canadian forestry/O&G workers, you will be treated as a terrorist..........PET had no problem deploying the army after all during the FLQ crisis for a group that started off torching mailboxes....

The army wasn't deployed because they were torching mailboxes. :\

The pipeline explosions are poor examples of so called 'ecoterrorism'. Eco freaks don't damage the environment that way.

.

[Wilber]

Don't confuse the issue with facts Derek, but in truth mailbox bombs were just a part of the FLQ issue and one of them did kill a bomb disposal expert.

[Derek 2.0]

Ya there was that 'tactics' disagreement between Greenpeace and Paul Watson.

.

Yeah, a large group like Greenpeace doesn't want to be associated with eco-terrorism.......I don't blame them.

[Wilber]

The pipeline explosions are poor examples of so called 'ecoterrorism'. Eco freaks don't damage the environment that way.

.

Bull. Zealots believe that whatever they do is justifiable.

[jacee]

Yeah, a large group like Greenpeace doesn't want to be associated with eco-terrorism.......I don't blame them.

Diversity of tactics.

Once again: Doesn't terrorism have to CAUSE TERROR in the public?

BTW ...

The whaling has stopped.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Derek 2.0]

Don't confuse the issue with facts Derek, but in truth mailbox bombs were just a part of the FLQ issue and one of them did kill a bomb disposal expert.

I never stated different.......as I said, the FLQ started with mailboxes and then clearly progressed. If an eco-group started cutting break lines on tanker trucks and progressed to lighting up the Chevron refinery in the Burrard inlet, at what point do you consider said groups actions as terrorism?

[Derek 2.0]

Diversity of tactics.

Once again: Doesn't terrorism have to CAUSE TERROR in the public?

BTW ...

The whaling has stopped.

.

I already provided the legal definition for you.....

and no, the whaling hasn't been stopped....

[Wilber]

Once again: Doesn't terrorism have to cause terror in the public?

BTW ...

The whaling has stopped.

.

No it hasn't. Sea Shepherd is bigger and more active than ever operating three ships. Looked at one in Auckland harbour in November, all painted up in its camo colours, looking very military and fund raising up a storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Sam_Simon

Edited February 20, 2015 by Wilber

[Wilber]

I never stated different.......as I said, the FLQ started with mailboxes and then clearly progressed. If an eco-group started cutting break lines on tanker trucks and progressed to lighting up the Chevron refinery in the Burrard inlet, at what point do you consider said groups actions as terrorism?

Oh, I fully agree that the FLQ was a terrorist organization and their acts were terrorist acts but the mailbox bombs were just a part of imposing the WMA and probably not the largest part.

[On Guard for Thee]

You are concerned that the new law clearly outlines what methods of interrogation and treatment are illegal? Seems rather prudent from an advocacy point of view, as it clearly disallows legal grey areas in other Western countries that allow methods like water-boarding and rectal feeding of those detained…

I thought we had advanced far beyond those practices so it seems concerning this new bill has to have such directives.

[Keepitsimple]

It seems we have a majority of the small minority of Canadians who disapprove of the legislation clustered around this forum......but they sure make a lot of noise.

[kungfuthug]

It is far riskier to take a ride in a vehicle than it is to be a victim of a terror attack in Canada. Likely almost everywhere in the world. The numbers don't lie. Maybe this new legislation may prevent an attack. Maybe it will do nothing other than strip away the rights we once fought to keep. Regardless, I would rather be without this additional restraint placed on my freedoms and rights even if there is a minuscule reduction in my safety.

The amount of money spent on the illusion of terror/war on terror is in error!

[On Guard for Thee]

It seems we have a majority of the small minority of Canadians who disapprove of the legislation clustered around this forum......but they sure make a lot of noise.

We also have 4 former PMs against this legislation. One of them is eve a former con PM, Joe Clark.

[Wilber]

The amount of money spent on the illusion of terror/war on terror is in error!

You my be right but in reality, we have no way of knowing whether that is true.

[jacee]

Bull. Zealots believe that whatever they do is justifiable.

Criminals do that.

Not environmentalists.

I'm trying to get more info about those pipeline explosions, but what comes up are lots of 'accidental' pipeline explosions, many many more ...

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[kungfuthug]

You my be right but in reality, we have no way of knowing whether that is true.

Of course we do. How much money globally is spent annually on terror related expenditures? USA alone spent $16 Billion USD in 2013.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/

How many people are affected by terrorism in a year? 17 Americans were killed by "terror" attacks in the same period.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/06/05/how-many-americans-are-killed-by-terrorism/

I cannot confirm these as facts as they were just result of a quick Google search. I imagine that these are within the correct ballpark.

[jacee]

No it hasn't. Sea Shepherd is bigger and more active than ever operating three ships. Looked at one in Auckland harbour in November, all painted up in its camo colours, looking very military and fund raising up a storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Sam_Simon

Damn. Musta dreamed I heard that on TV. :/

Nice $11m grant ... new boat ... 'sea axe' ...

.

[Wilber]

Of course we do. How much money globally is spent annually on terror related expenditures? USA alone spent $16 Billion USD in 2013.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/

How many people are affected by terrorism in a year? 17 Americans were killed by "terror" attacks in the same period.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/06/05/how-many-americans-are-killed-by-terrorism/

I cannot confirm these as facts as they were just result of a quick Google search. I imagine that these are within the correct ballpark.

You assume that laws and countermeasures have no deterrent effect, We don't know how many attempts never got off the ground merely because of the resources and obstacles put in their way. You may or may not be right but there is no real way of knowing.

[jacee]

I already provided the legal definition for you.....

That's right.

It has to cause terror.

Prevention of pipelines does not cause terror.

But all of the 'accidental' pipeline explosions, ruptures, leakage and seepage are causing widespread public fear ... and direct action.

and no, the whaling hasn't been stopped....

Sigh. No.

Gonna be an interesting year on the sea ...

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[kungfuthug]

You assume that laws and countermeasures have no deterrent effect, We don't know how many attempts never got off the ground merely because of the resources and obstacles put in their way. You may or may not be right but there is no real way of knowing.

That is a true statement. I do not know. I cannot look at statistics before the war on terror as the geopolitical scene was vastly different. I however would be willing to cut the spending to $0 and roll the dice.

[Smallc]

If I build my shed in your backyard without consulting with you, would you tear it down?

Not if his backyard is Crown Land and such as act is prohibited. Ceded or not, it's all Crown Land, and Canadian and provincial law applies throughout.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Smallc

[Wilber]

That is a true statement. I do not know. I cannot look at statistics before the war on terror as the geopolitical scene was vastly different. I however would be willing to cut the spending to $0 and roll the dice.

Roll the dice on what? You have no idea what the consequences might be and for whom.