Canadian Parliament Attack

[+ azdr0710]

was just now watching a live speech in Parliament....all Canadians must surely be proud now....and special note to the soldier killed on duty, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo.....

 

http://test435.sunnewsnetwork.ca/media_files/nathan11022.jpg

[bigvalboy]

Thanks for the post azdr. CNN reporting a moving tribute to the Sergeant of arms as a real hero here.

[+ quoththeraven]

I was horrified and taken aback when I heard about the attack on the war memorial and the Canadian parliament on NPR this morning. I suspect Canadians are feeling much more insecure than they did before this happened, as they experience less violence (and, I believe, less gun violence) than in the US. NPR reported that there'd been five murders in Ottawa so far this year. That's out of a population of around 870,000.

[+ azdr0710]

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_43/734156/pc-141024-nathan-cirillo-procession-03_8ed235a9e104dcd9ca28167ec41b1044.nbcnews-ux-1520-900.jpg

[Juan Vancouver]

was just now watching a live speech in Parliament....all Canadians must surely be proud now....

 

I have to confess that I have read this post many times and for the life of me I can't understand what you meant by it. And I am not trying to be pugnacious, I am really not sure why we would be proud because there was a crime that involved a soldier.

 

It was not a terrorist act. It was a crazy drug addict with a number of badly digested ideals and nothing to lose.

 

I find it specially interesting given that amongst everyone with whom I have spoken, almost every single Canadian I have spoken with feels ashamed, angry and directly responsible. Of course we feel responsible for our Prime Minister's terrible history. We feel responsible for having allowed a warmonger destroy our peace-keeping values, ashamed we have let him erase our reputation of being an environmentally aware and proactive nation, ashamed that we have not cared for the mentally ill well enough to allow a mentally unstable drug addict to commit such an empty, stupid, hurtful crime.

 

We are all aware of the possibility and ready to fight back if this government decides to use this unfortunate event as an excuse to cut back civil liberties (The Harper Government has a rich history of repression and censure) and above all we are fully aware that we have to allow this strike, which feels very personal to every Canadian, to remind us to come together, all of us and pull in the same direction. No muslims versus the rest, no immigrants versus second or third generations, but all of us Canadian.

 

I suspect Canadians are feeling much more insecure than they did before this happened, as they experience less violence (and, I believe, less gun violence) than in the US. NPR reported that there'd been five murders in Ottawa so far this year. That's out of a population of around 870,000.

 

It is my pleasure to report that of all Canadians with whom I have spoken, not a single one said he or she feels more unsafe after this, not a single one feared that violent crimes, propaganda driven or not might become the norm.

 

We have carefully worked to build good relationships with most, and while it is true that The Harper Government is damaging this, we believe it is still time for us to go back to our Canadian ways.

 

Not a single person with whom I have spoken has wished for tighter border controls, greater police or military presence, greater powers to Big Brother or any change in the way we live our lives.

 

Funnily, the only person that I heard saying that expected harsher security screens at the border was Patty Griffin, an american musician who gave a concert last night in Vancouver. She and her crew expected the border to be a total Bedlam so they gave themselves many extra hours to make it to their concert on time. Much to their surprise, when they reached the border they found normal waiting times, a big smile and business as usual. Welcome to Canada.

 

We are a very restrained lot. I don't think we have it in ourselves as a nation to respond to the media the way the media wants us to respond.

 

Aside for the collective sadness of seeing one of us die in service, it's business as usual in Canada.

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/bm_cartoon/Brucex24%20RGB_22.jpg

[+ azdr0710]

I have to confess that I have read this post many times and for the life of me I can't understand what you meant by it. And I am not trying to be pugnacious, I am really not sure why we would be proud because there was a crime that involved a soldier.

 

 

sorry, Juan....I was referring to the speeches being given in Parliament yesterday AM.....

 

all you say, of course, is entirely reasonable and to-the-point....as always

[Steven_Draker]

It was not a terrorist act.

 

Juan, if yesterday's shooting was not a terrorist act, then what is a "terrorist act" for you?

 

I think we should take off the rose colored glasses and look at the facts:

 

 

Canada shootings and the terrorism debate

 

Canada's prime minister has promised to strengthen anti-terror laws in the wake of a gunman's attack on parliament. What is distinctive about the threat Canada has faced, and what is different about the way it tackles violent extremism?

 

As you step through the front door of Canada's parliament building, the first thing you see is a bullet hole on the floor.

 

Amid the gothic splendour of the Centre Block, it serves as a jarring reminder of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau's assault on the building.

 

Soon the parliamentarians who barricaded themselves in offices and meeting rooms during his rampage will vote on "much strengthened" surveillance and detention powers promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the aftermath of the shooting.

 

But for all the headlines about it representing a loss of national innocence, Canada is hardly a stranger to the threat of political violence.

 

Nor has its government previously neglected to pass laws aimed at tackling violent extremists. Indeed, just weeks before Zehaf-Bibeau's rampage, ministers unveiled plans to give federal security agencies more powers to track suspects.

 

As in other Western nations following the attacks of 11 September 2001, Canadian society witnessed fierce debates about the power and scope of the security services, with supporters of new legislation insisting it was necessary to safeguard the public and critics complaining that it trampled on civil liberties.

 

The Anti-Terrorism Act, passed by the Canadian parliament in December 2001, introduced new powers and penalties designed, in part, to prevent 9/11-style attacks.

 

It is possible that the most recent violence will again encourage some people "to err more on the side of collective safety", suggests Prof Christian Leuprecht, a security expert at the Royal Military College of Canada. Others will conclude the balance already has been tipped far enough against fundamental freedoms.

 

Still, Canada has never before experienced a week like this one. The shootings around Parliament Hill came a day after another Muslim convert killed a soldier in Quebec.

 

 

Among some Islamist militants, there had at one stage been a sense that Canada - which did not declare war on Iraq in 2003 - was "not a real high-value target", says Fen Osler Hampson, director of the global security and politics programme at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

 

Canada's participation in the attacks on Islamic State may have changed this.

 

Nonetheless, the country has produced a number of potentially deadly terrorist plots.

 

In 2006, the so-called "Toronto 18" planned to detonate truck bombs around Toronto and take hostages including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in al-Qaeda-inspired plot. Some 11 men were convicted of terror-related offences.

 

 

As recently as 18 September, Hiva Alizadeh was jailed for attempting to organise a jihadist cell in Ottawa. Tunisian Chiheb Esseghaier and Palestinian Raed Jaser are awaiting trial over an alleged plan to derail a train between Toronto and New York.

 

Others have been involved in overseas terrorism. Since 9/11, dozens of Canadian citizens are thought to have travelled to the Middle East and beyond to join militant groups:

 

 

There are some recurring characteristics among Canadian Islamists, says Mr Hampson. Compared with their counterparts from other Western counties, they are more likely to be socially marginalised, often unemployed individuals, who often act alone. Many are converts.

 

 

"In Canada, Muslims are much better integrated in society and they are much more upwardly mobile for the most part," says Mr Hampson. "They've adopted the identity of being Canadian and being tolerant."

 

Those who do not stand out.

 

Canada encountered violent extremism in the years before 9/11 - the Front de Liberation du Quebec was responsible for around 160 violent incidents and eight deaths between 1963 and 1970. But the attacks in New York were the impetus for Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.

 

This legislation defined "terrorist activity", created a list of "terrorist entities", and created a number of new criminal offences including for example instructing someone to carry out an attack.

 

Two temporary measures were also passed - one allowing for preventive detention in some circumstances, another permitting hearings in which a judge could compel someone with information about a possible attack to answer questions before a court. Both expired in 2007 but have subsequently been reinstated.

 

Further legislation, which came into effect in 2013, makes it illegal to leave Canada, or to attempt to do so, with the intention of carrying out an attack.

 

Last week, before the attacks, Public Safety Minister Stephen Blaney said the government was preparing to boost the powers of Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

 

 

He said the reforms would allow CSIS to monitor suspects when they travel abroad in order to pursue prosecutions, but the specifics of the proposals have not yet been outlined.

 

The Globe and Mail newspaper reported that government officials were considering whether CSIS should be allowed to use "threat-diminishment" tactics, including "aggressively interviewing" a parent or employer of a young suspect who has not been charged.

 

On Thursday, Mr Harper said the law must be strengthened "in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest".

 

It is an issue that will divide opinion. Mr Hampson says that, despite a civil libertarian streak, most Canadians will conclude that "we have to live in the real world".

 

By contrast, Prof Kent Roach at the University of Toronto, says that the "Canadian offences of leaving Canada to engage in various forms of terrorism actually places Canada ahead of both the UK and the US".

 

The problem with the law is that it is not being properly enforced, not that it does not go far enough, he believes.

 

It is a debate that will serve for some time yet as a reminder of Canada's most traumatic week in recent memory. Just like those bullet holes in Parliament Hill.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29753399

[+ quoththeraven]

Juan -- Glad to know Canadians aren't responding with the jingoistic hysteria that would occur here. Three of my LiveJournal friends live in Canada, but none of them in or near Ottawa, so I haven't asked them their reactions, and none of them has posted about it.

[Juan Vancouver]

sorry, Juan....I was referring to the speeches being given in Parliament yesterday AM.....

 

all you say, of course, is entirely reasonable and to-the-point....as always

 

Hey man,

 

I am glad that I asked and of course you are right on target. Most of us were horrified by Harper's speech, but when Mulcair and Trudeau gave their speech we jumped right into the self-congratulatory smugness that is so Canadian.

 

I hope most of us will be able to keep a clear head and an open heart and very few will feel tempted to buy Harper's line.

 

Only time will tell.

 

Big hug!

[bigvalboy]

Hey man,

 

I am glad that I asked and of course you are right on target. Most of us were horrified by Harper's speech, but when Mulcair and Trudeau gave their speech we jumped right into the self-congratulatory smugness that is so Canadian.

 

I hope most of us will be able to keep a clear head and an open heart and very few will feel tempted to buy Harper's line.

 

Only time will tell.

 

Big hug!

 

This gave me a chuckle Juan. I have neighbors that are Canadian 'snow birds' and over lengthy conversations poolside, I certainly agree with that, but I hardly think that Canadians have a patent on it. We Americans are a bit smug as well. All the best.