"The terrorists are us, you might say."

[mirror]

So we have spent $10 billion so far fighting terrorism in Canada while 10,000 Canadians have died from pollution and disease.

Who actually benefits from this massive security expenditure? The Canadian government politicians, the security industry, the US, and the terrorists. Who doesn't benefit is the Canadian people.

Isn't it time for Canada to switch priorities?

Anti-terror money would be better spent on smog, disease: critics

The billions of dollars Canada is spending to protect people from the remote threat of terrorism would be better used fighting far greater risks such as disease and smog, critics say.

Ottawa has allotted more than $10 billion for enhanced public safety since the 9-11 attacks in New York, while thousands die from air and water pollution.

"I think we're investing a lot of money on feel-good programs, that we could be saving a lot more lives in some of our environmental problems," said David Schindler, a prominent ecology professor at the University of Alberta.

He said far more people are killed by air and water pollution than by terrorism, citing an estimate by the American Microbiological Society that 100,000 Americans die annually due to waterborne disease.

"That translates into about 10,000 (Canadians) sickened by plain old pathogens, nothing that a terrorist puts into our water supply. The terrorists are us, you might say."

--------

"We already have seen the costs of integrating security with the United States and I think it's name was Maher Arar. He was very much a victim of the cross-border information sharing."

[cybercoma]

in one thread you say we're in terrible danger of being attacked because of our position in Afghanistan, etc. now in this one you're claiming there is a "remote threat" of terrorism?

let's cancel all programs that protect us from terrorists because history has shown that when you don't protect yourself, they don't bother attacking you.

[mirror]

Typical military mindset. Let's fight everybody. Let's nuke em, etc.

Stop living in, and spreading, fear.

As the scientists say, pour the money into disease precention and fighting polution and fewer people will die, than with pouring all these resources into fighting terrorism.

[Canuck E Stan]

If you were a reporter and you were to ask someone about that threat, who would you talk to about the chances of that threat? Would you go to a ecology professor,(who knows about ecology and it's threat) to talk about terrorism threats.or a microbiologist who used to work for Health Canada(who gave a"In my opinion"about stockpiling pharmaceuticals),many experts(none of which are named) director general of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response(in talking about BIOTERRORISM being low but said the consequences are high), a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety and Preparedness(said the government's emergency planning is aimed at all hazards, not just terrorism.)a director of the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute(aid the Canadian response to terrorism has basically mirrored that of the U.S.) So of ALL the "critics" only one said money should be spent fighting smog instead,that being the ecologist.I couldn't find anyone's quote saying the money should be spent on disease.

DENNIS BUECKERT the reporter on this story really doesn't have a story.What is the story?Is it about terrorism,or ecology or anthrax,or small pox or the country's preparedness for disaster,or is he just trying to put a whole lot of information to appear like it's important news.I would say it's the latter. This is typical of how the media presents a lot of it's information these days,don't accept this kind of news as news because it's not. Finding one critic who would rather the money go to smog control is hardly headline news.

[plusgood]

I've often thought about this argument in the past. I am also convinced that a lot of the War On Terror and threat of possible terrorist attacks in Canada is exaggerated. This doesn't mean I think it's impossible, it simply means I think we over empathize its likeliness and the posed threat. However, this does not mean that I think we shouldn't increase funding to our security agencies in order to be on the safe side. First off, maybe the increased 10billion funding has prevented attacks in Canada, or intelligence gathered has helped to prevent attacks in other countries. I'm trying to point out that for all the general public knows this increase in funding may have been responsible for preventing attacks and thus there are no terror related death figures in Canada. It would be equivalent to saying that law enforcement funding should be reduced in correlation to a reduction in the crime rate, which would ignore the fact that higher law enforcement funding had helped to reduce the crime rate. Secondly, despite the fact terror attacks will never cause the same level of death as disease, cancer, pollution, car accidents, suicide and so on in Canada it does not mean it shouldn't take on a higher priority in government. A terror attack demonstrates weakness and vulnerability and gives extremists a success story to help further their cause. It strikes fear in the hearts of Canadians and could stall our economy. If a terrorist is able to launch an attack in Canada, even if the death toll is small, it hurts our integrity and strengthens the terrorists', this could give them victories they should be denied. Thirdly, increased security funding can help to stop the flow of organized crime activity into Canada, whether it is drugs, people, or child pornography, it poses a threat to Canadians, and I can only assume that increases in security funding will ultimately result in reduced levels of these offenses. So, I do not think the increased funding is a waste...

With all that said I must admit I am not fully convinced that any measures taken can truly stop a determined terrorist group. There will always be holes in the system waiting to be taken advantage of. I am also one of the many believers that different attitudes towards the Arab world, mainly in terms of foreign policy, would go a long way to reducing the terrorist threat.

[Canuck E Stan]

From that article

Timothea Gibb, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety and Preparedness, said

"I think it's important that Canadians are prepared. Is it better to prepare for something that never happens than not to prepare and have it happen?"

For me, that that's how I feel. It becomes too late after any disaster has happened to say "we should done something to try and prevent it or we weren't ready for it.

[mirror]

All this hype about terrorism from the politicians, the military, the police, the security industry and the media is scaring people. The reporting of the attacks in London recently make it sound like there are bombs going off every minute. Nonsense.

Do you remember the FLQ in Quebec? We brought in the War Measures Act, terrifying everyone, rounded up hundreds of innocent people in the middle of the night, because of a few criminals, which you could count on your hands.

I certainly respect the way the British are approaching their interrogations compared to the American approach. All interviews with the prisoners are tape recorded in the UK.

Who benefits from all this terrorism hype?

The government and/or politicians

The security industry

The police

The media

The criminals

Who loses?

The citizens

[Nemo]

deleted

[Argus]

So we have spent $10 billion so far fighting terrorism in Canada while 10,000 Canadians have died from pollution and disease.

I question that. Ten billion? On what? Our military is no larger. The RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard and Customs remain chronically underfunded. Private sector security guards making very low wages continue to screen travellers at airports. So what did we spend this ten billion bucks on? Advertising in Quebec?

He said far more people are killed by air and water pollution than by terrorism, citing an estimate by the American Microbiological Society that 100,000 Americans die annually due to waterborne disease.

I question that number too.

"Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435000 deaths; 18.1%

of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400000 deaths; 16.6%), and

alcohol consumption (85000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75000), toxic agents (55000), motor vehicle crashes (43000), incidents involving firearms (29000), sexual behaviors (20000), and illicit use of drugs (17000)."

Causes of death in the United States

[BHS]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

-- H.L. Mencken, 1920

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, in essence, Clinton was right in ignoring increasingly bold terrorist attacks on US targets throughout the 90's, because the terrorist threat was imaginary. Makes you wonder why they went through all of that bother with the 911 commission, trying to assess what could have been done to prevent the attack, when clearly the right thing to do was what Clinton did, which was to ignore the threat and hope that it all just goes away.

[BHS]

mirror: let me get this straight - you're against spending $10B to prevent terrorism, which actually happens, but you're for spending billions on Kyoto penalties, knowing that Kyoto will have no effect on the environment at all? And I'm supposed to take anything you post seriously?

[mirror]

I can see how we have spent $10 billion on new security measures. Think about what has happened in Canada alone since 9/11. Take all the increased security costs at our airports, at the ports, CSIS expansion, RCMP expansion, police expansion, extra security now at all public buildings, at our borders, immigration procedures, shopping centres, cameras, cameras everywhere, etc. In some ways I am surprised it is only $10 billion. Insanity is what it is. Feel good stuff that was all unnecessary until Hillier opened his mouth. Canada might want to consider pulling out of Afghanstan though.

Kyoto was the beginning, a basic first step to address global warming, that the entire scientific community, apart from a few corporate stooges, supported. Oh yea, George Bush finally agreed there is global warming this year. What brillance! Wow!

[BHS]

I can see how we have spent $10 billion on new security measures. Think about what has happened in Canada alone since 9/11. Take all the increased security costs at our airports, at the ports, CSIS expansion, RCMP expansion, police expansion, extra security now at all public buildings, at our borders, immigration procedures, shopping centres, cameras, cameras everywhere, etc. In some ways I am surprised it is only $10 billion. Insanity is what it is. Feel good stuff that was all unnecessary until Hillier opened his mouth. Canada might want to consider pulling out of Afghanstan though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say, that if one general making a tough-guy stance in the papers was all it took to put us in danger, then we were in danger the whole time.

[mirror]

And you are an authority on this. Right!

[BHS]

And you are an authority on this. Right! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who's posting from no greater a position of authority on the matter. I don't recall you mentioning that you had expertise in national security.

[Argus]

I can see how we have spent $10 billion on new security measures. Think about what has happened in Canada alone since 9/11. Take all the increased security costs at our airports, at the ports,

There are a few extra mounties wandering around, but to my knowledge there has been no increase in security. As I said, we still have those minimum wage security guards and screeners in place (most of them recent refugees and immigrants). At one point the feds were charging a $10 "security fee" on every ticket but I believe they were forced to cut it as the opposition grew increasingly vocal in their demands to know just what it was being spent on. Our ports police were disbanded by Paul Martin and there is no plan to replace them, so security at ports is negligable.

CSIS expansion,

CSIS Budget

RCMP expansion, police expansion,

RCMP Staffing Shortages

RCMP recruits must pay own way

Total additional money given to the RCMP and CSIS is listed here as half a billion over the last five years. So where was the other 9.5 billion spent? Advertising in Quebec?

New funding for CSIS and RCMP

extra security now at all public buildings,

Phht. I work for the government. I do a lot of travel back and forth to other government buildings. I can tell you that some have no security at all except locked doors, while some, like mine, have the same minimum wage security guards they've always had. No increases. There WAS a brief increase after 911, but it only lasted about a year. For example, my building, a very large one, has a thin wooden rail across its garage entrance so cars have to stop to flash their electronic key, but it's so thin you would basically break it if you walked into it too hard. It's really there to make sure people don't drive in to park illegally.

at our borders,

Customs staffing shortages

immigration procedures, shopping centres, cameras, cameras everywhere, etc. In some ways I am surprised it is only $10 billion.

To reiterate, I can find no evidence to support that figure. And while the RCMP and CSIS were given more money both agencies were so chronically underfunded, and remain underfunded that their value in guarding against terrorism is questioinable at best.

[Canuck E Stan]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

-- H.L. Mencken, 1920

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great quote,Nemo,but are you sure it was H.L. Mencken's?

I'd swear it belonged to the Liberal Party of Canada.