Neutralizing Jihadist Terrorism and Bill C-51

Slumberjack wrote:

There seems to be a contradiction in play when someone professing to deal in reality and fact privileges an entirely sanitized/gentrified version of it where it concerns the political discourse of the commons.

The FLQ must have been quite the powerful group if the entire country was put at risk.  Or, is it the case that what we're encountering here is a flair for the dramatic that is not as grounded in fact as advertised?

Additionally, a country saved from it's own laws is a country that risks being rescued primarily for the fascist whims of whomever is in power.

They didn't need to BE powerful, they only needed to SEEM powerful. That is what terrorism is all about. A lone gunman on parliament Hill really wasn't very powerful, but the hysteria he generated was immense. There were only a handful of participants in 9/11. Not very powerful, or widespread. Same with the Paris attacks. You don't need to put the entire country at risk, just placing a stadium full of people will suffice.

I am not sure who is doinng the snitizing, me or you?

"February 26, 1970A police patrol car investigating a suspicious rented truck found in it a sawed-off gun, a basket large enough to contain a grown man and in the pocket of Jacques Lanctôt, one of the kidnappers of James Cross, a press release indicating that Moshe Golan, the Israeli trade consul in Montreal, had been kidnapped. The two men involved were charged with illegal possession of a weapon and, later, with conspiracy to kidnap. Both were released on bail, whereupon they disappeared.
June 21, 1970

Acting on an informer’s tip, police raided a cottage in Prévost. Aside from finding four men and two women, they found 150 leaflets which stated that Harrison Burgess, the United States Consul-General in Montreal had been kidnapped. The kidnapping had been planned for July 4. The terms for the ransom were very similar to those demanded during the October Crisis. Charges against the individuals involved were still pending at the time of the October Crisis.

October 5, 1970 Beginning of the "October crisis". James Cross, British Trade Commissioner was kidnapped at 8.15 a.m. by two armed men. By three p.m. in the afternoon, ransom notes had been received. They identified the abductors as the Liberation cell of the Front de Libération du Québec [FLQ; the Liberation cell included Louise Lanctôt and her husband Jacques Cossette-Trudel, Marc Carbonneau, Jacques Lanctôt and Pierre Seguin. Knowledge of a sixth individual will surface later]. A list of demands was given for the safe release of James Cross. These were the release of 23 "political prisoners", payment of $500,000 in gold, the broadcast and the publication of the FLQ manifesto, publication of the names of the police informants of terrorist activities, the provision of an aircraft to take the kidnappers to a safe haven, in Cuba or Algeria, the rehiring of the Lapalme postal truck drivers and cessation of all police search activities.

On this day were issued communiqués numbered 1-2 of the Liberation cell."

Four plots, two thwarted, two completed. This was escalating.

1969

• On January 2, three mail boxes located near federal offices explode.
• On January 8, a bomb explodes near the domicile of Jean-Paul Gilbert, Montreal chief of police.
• On February 13, a bomb explodes at the building of the Montreal Stock Exchange. Some 20 people are injured.

• On May 5, Pierre Charette and Alain Allard of the Geoffroy network operate the hijacking of a Boeing 727 from the National Airlines flying between New York and Miami.
• On June 15, a bomb explodes at the headquarters of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Sherbrooke (SSJBS). (The SSJBS had invited Pierre Trudeau to preside the religious ceremonies of June 24.)
• On September 10, a public demonstration turns to violence in Saint-Léonard. The Riot Act is proclaimed and about a hundred people are arrested.
• On September 29, a bomb explodes at the domicile of Jean Drapeau, the Mayor of Montreal.
• On October 7, violence bursts during a protest of the Mouvement de libération du taxi held at the headquarters of the Murray Hill transport company. The private security guards hired by the company fire on the crowd and kill one man, Robert Dumas, SQ police officer who was then not wearing the uniform.

1970 

• June 24, FLQ bombing of National Defence Headquarters building in Ottawa kills Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain.[16]
• July 3, bomb explodes at Petrofina Refinery at Point aux Trembles, East Montreal Island. A communiqué, written by Nigel Hamer, is published in Le Journal de Montréal two days later.[17]

Do you really think the public did not perceive a real and imminent threat? Or is dismissing all this as inor disturbances, people exercising their democratic rights, 'sanitizing' our history?

It is shameful how actual facts can distort one's perception of reality, isn't it?

alan smithee wrote:

I wouldn't compare the FLQ with radical Islamists. They're not comparable.

I do agree with a crack down on Whabbism. Saudi Arabia should be held accountable for breeding this shit and funding it. Just like Turkey who are funding ISIS by buying their oil and treating their wounded.

Syria and Iraq are scapegoats. If our overlords weren't so deeply addicted to oil,we could focus on the cause of this cancer by starving SA economically and militarily.

Alas,that isn't ever going to happen. We (our governments) are in for the longf haul and quite happy with a perpetual war in the Middle East.

Question is,who benefits from this? I can only think of 2 countries.

I never compared the FLQ to ISIS. There is no comparison. ISIS is externally funded,FLQ was completely home grown. What I am saying is the techniques used to neutralize them are similar. Unlegal actiities are sometimes needed to stop real and imminent threats to our population, when the regular process is too  slow or cumbersome to respond.

Syria and Iraq do not, and never have, existed as 'countries', they exist only as artificial lines drawn on a map by French and English diplomats during the first world war. There was never, and still isn't, an Iraqui or Syrian citizen, except that Western interests made them such.

Had Sykes and Picot spent time understanding the tribal nature of the Middle East, particularly long-standing annimosity between Suuni, Shia, and the Kurds, and drawn their lines accordingly, we would not have the turmoil we have. Iran was left as dominantly Shia, Saudi Arabia was Sunni, but Iraq, Syria, Libya, Jordan, and the rest were split, and the Kurds were left homeless, spread over three 'countries'. Heavy-handed oppressive regimes kept order, through frequent application of overwhelming, merciless power. When these artificial governments collapsed. the chaos we see today ensued. They are essentially battling among themselves to 'rationalize' the terrotorial boundaries. Iran wants to unite all of the Shia, Saudi Arabia wants to unite the Sunnis, but hasn't decided what country labell will apply, and ISIS wants to pre-empt the existing labels by defining a Sunni caliphate. The Kurds want their own land (which will probably center on the ancient Zorastrian religion instead of their forced conversion to islam). The Palestinians are ignored by the Syrian-Iraq faction, and the Israelis are bystanders.

Of course, all bets are off when the Iranians get nukes. Make no mistake, they want nukes not because of thee threat if Israel, but because of the threat of Saudi Arabia. The Iranians saw ISIS developing long before the west. Trouble was, we weren't talking to the Iranians then.

But the Russians were. Now, the russians have the upper hand.

mark_alfred wrote:

The Toronto 18 were arrested, and then tried in 2010, I believe, which is long before Bill C-51 and long after the WMA.  So it's a false argument to say that either WMA or Bill C-51 played any part in it.  It was regular policing.  Same is true for the October Crisis.  Even Robert Stanfield, who initially supported the WMA, later said he regretted his support, claiming he came to see that it was an unnecessary use of force.  And during a couple of inquiries (Keable Commission, Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP -- see bottom of link under "Keable Commission") it came out from both Turner and Bourassa that the WMA was nothing more than an unnecessary show:

Your posts have basically said, bad stuff happened -- hey, check out these wikipedia links! -- then suspensions of civil liberties allowing a police state occur and yay! we're safe again.  Hardly an argument, given that the example given is generally viewed as having been solved through regular police work.

Anyway, if you wish to believe that setting up Canada as a police state is necessary for our safety, then go ahead.  I feel that police states are inherently more dangerous, period. Societies with well defined civil liberties and an accountable police force will always be safer, I feel.

I have nothing more to say on this issue.

ETA:  Anyway, it seems to be a very small part of the thread, which is primarily focussed on international issues.  I don't follow international issues much.  I had not heard of Whabbism before, I confess, so I'm glad to learn of something new.

Okay, let me clear up a few things.

First, the quotes were intended to show the situation AT THE TIME. What people were faced with AT THE TIME. How pwople felt AT THE TIME.  It is well to say in hindsight, when all is safe and the threat is neutralized, that there was an over-reaction. After all, the consequences of NOT reacting were only conjecture. Personally, being around at the time, I am very glad the consequences of NOT acting were never experienced and will be forever unknown. But of course WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED is never a valid arguement, simply ecause it DIDN'T happen. It was not ALLOWED to happen. Really, when you are up to your neck in angry seething alligators, it is NOT the time to argue about what would happen if you did nothing. Maybe they WILL go away. But probably not. Do you take the chance?

I have never said that the Toronto 18 is connected in any way to the WMA OR Bill C-51. I explained how Zak was successfully prosecuted - convicted by his own confession. What I said, was that the masterminds behind him, his handlers, were immune from prosecution, and continue even today to radicalize Canadians with impunity. Zak was, and is, not the problem. His mentors were the problem. The law can not touch them. I referred to the recent students from a Toronto mosque who went to fight with ISIS. The school is untouchable in Canadian law. My point is, as detestable as Bill C-51 is, we have a choice. Some aspect of the WMA and Bill C-51, with adequate oversite; or a continuation of ISIS recruitment in Canada and Paris-style attacks.

We have little to fear from the immigrants. Going after them is a knee-jerk reaction. We have nothing to gain by isolating Muslims. They are just as terrorized by Wahhabism. It is the home-grown radicalized youth that we have to fear. Unless we stop the radicalization, we will not stop the terrorism. The radicalization can not be stoped legally. If it is stoped, it will be done unlegally.

Perhaps a quote is in order.

 "Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all. "

From 'You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabi...

This is what the Wahhabi schools are teaching in Canada and the US. They have billions of dollars behind them. More money than many nations.

I can give you a litany of similar quotes, from PBS, the BBC, the New York Times, The Agenda, covering a ten year span. This is main stream media, not just Wikipedia links. I can send you a video link (if I can find it again) where President Obama specifically identifies the Wahhabism-terrorist link. 

CBC would not publish anything about Wahhabism in the blogs, until I provided these links. They were too fearful of libel action. The Wahhabi schools are just that powerful, that lawyered up, that financially sound. They can spend millions in legal fees, and not sweat a drop. But make no mistake, Harper AND Trudeau have been well briefed, privately.

Since Harper ended up cowering in a closet, he has experienced first hand what terrorism is all about. It's strange what will happen to your perception of freedom and rights when there is a person on the other side of the unlocked door, with a gun in his hands, and who is determined to kill you and every other politician. The guy doing the shooting doesn't care two hoots about your charter rights, OR your democracy, OR what is legal. At that point, you just want him dead, to hell with HIS rights. What does PTSD mean to you? Now extend it to our entire legislature. Every one of them facing imminent death just beyond a flimsy door.

But the choice is clear. Continued terrorist attacks (and I used the Toronto 18 to illustrate that these attacks are NOT hypothetical, but REAL) will continue unless tools are put in place to neutralize them. These tools can not be within our legal system, notwithstanding that our legal system is bogged down, non-responsive, literally an albatross, but becauuse it can not extend beyond our borders. If we do not want our government agencies to do anything illegally, we must provide the tools to do it unlegally (outside of the legal system). On the other hand, Harper ALSO demonstrated how fragile our freedom and democracy is, and how easliy it can be taken from us. Our parliamentary system just does not protect our democracy, when one man can so easily trod over it. If it were not for the fact that our Supreme Court Justices had the balls to stand up to him, who knows what would have happened.

So our rights are not really enshrined in any laws. Keeping things legal is no protection. Harper did everything legally. So did Hitler, by the way, in an established democratic country. And Hitler was in power for only ten years, same length as Harper.

The only thing that will protect us is oversight. Redundant oversight. Oversight beyond the reaches of parliament, (our legislative AND our executive branches), that the repeal of Bill C-51 does nothing to correct. Oversight that allows our secuurity forces to neutralize specific and identified threats. Like Wahhabist threats. Like threats that come from outside our country. And oversight that protects us from our own legislature.

We can kill every ISIS terrorist. Every ISIS follower. We can bomb Syria into even more of a wasteland than it already is. There will still be Wahhabist teaching. These schools are everywhere in the world. Protected by religious freedom. In Canada, a religion can not be banned. So how do we deal with it? We can not deal with it within the law. Europe has recognized this. Britain recognized it with the IRA. Terrorism is an external threat, and our laws do not extend to Saudi Arabia. We can not close our borders to it, because the cancer is in every country. These prosletyzers will just come from somewherre else. If not in person, then through the Internet.

Weather we like it or not, our rights WILL be reduced. Either by fear and terror, and a police state, (for all of you wishing that this could be handled within the existing policing structure, be careful of what you wish for. Police on every corner? 90% of our taxes going to support 'regular policing'? Police forces ten times the size they are now?) or by thoughtful, planned, and targeted changes in our laws, so we can neutralize the threat NOW. TODAY. Not a year from now. Paris found out the hard way that a 'year from now, and after careful analysis and debate' is a year too late. Now, they are doing a knee-jerk reaction out of panic, and out of necessity. Passing laws on the fly. THAT is when rights get truly trampled.

Trudeau used the WMA because it was the only tool he had. There was NO 'WMA light'. Everyone can accept that it was too harsh, that it conferred far too many powers. But there was no other choice. He had no other options. Perhaps many have forgotten that the 'regular policing' that brought the October crisis to a conclusion included the powers provided by the WMA to search without a warrant, to hold without bail pending an investigation, the ability to bring suspets in for questioning, the right to detain without a lawyer being notified, so the FLQ lawyer could not warn others and allow them to escape. Also, the police 'regular investigative methods' were not hampered by constitutional rights, or a bill of rights. We didn't have that until 1982. Yes, the FLQ lawyers were much a part of the problem, aiding and abeting the terrorists. (Consider what happens to our system if the majority of our best lawyers are employed and controlled by them, instead of the multinationals).  Okay, so officially the FLQ was not a terrorist organization. We did not HAVE the term back then. We did not have the tools for use against terrorists that we have now.

But we didn't think about what WOULD be an appropriate 'WMA light' back then, before it was needed, and we still haven't. We need to think about appropriate tools NOW, and to provide the other options, BEFORE they are needed. 

Otherwise, we will end up with knee-jerk actions like the implementation of the WMA.

Zak illustrated to me how vulnerable we really are, and how fragile our democracy really is, and how quickly and easily home-grown terrorists are radicalized. Righ under, literally, my own nose.

alan smithee wrote:

Mange de la MARDE!

I'm open to discuss how to eradicate,even criminalize Whabbism. I'm a little tired of the comparisons to the FLQ and I don't think it's worth debating WMA.

We have a police force. Competent policing and intelligence would be a FAR more effective tool to combat potential terror attacks.

First thing I'd do? End the drug war and have the police focus primarily on Whabbist propaganda and the smuggling of weapons and bomb making materials.

Since Wahhabism is centred in Saudi Arabia, and neither our laws OR our police force have any authority in that country, how do we deal with it?  How do we intercept things and people at our borders, without intel?

Change our laws so that a 'religious institution' and a 'religious curriculum' can be  declared a terrorist organization? That in itself seems to be a slippery slope. How do we deal with the residential schools, then? 

Or do we allow securrity agents to divert funds destined for these schools? Make theirbank accounts suddenly disappear, or go into overdraft? Tax bills for exhorbitant incorrect amounts, but foreclose for non-payment anyway while the process works through the bureaucracy? Divert the payroll for the teachers? Mess up and slow down Internet service to their premises? Mis-direct phone calls to them from outside the country? Re-direct mail from them? Alter their power bill, so power is cut off for non-payment? Send their email to strange locations? All dirty tricks that the Russians and Chinese have found are extremely useful. 

Bill C-51 was NOT about espionage, That was a red herring, and Trudeau will probably throw it out as problematic. Harper would probably have done so, as well, after enough court challenges. The REAL guts of the bill were the 'dirty tricks'. Will Trudeau throw THOSE out? He certainly would not have proposed them, would not have introduced them in a bill, but now they are there, well, hey. Blame it on Harper. Since the Bill passed, Trudeau's hands are clean. How convenient.

alan smithee wrote:

You've lost me there. I don't view Iran as a threat whatsoever. And if Iran wants to go to war with Saudi Arabia,we should have their backs.

It's the right wing who villify Iran. They are a theocracy but they are as stable and peaceful as you'll find anywhere in the Middle East.

How can you loose me, when you are agreeing with me?

If Iran had been left well enough alone by the West, it would now be the dominant country in the Middle East, even outpacing Saudi Arabia. It would be the policeman of the Middle East. You think ISIS would have had a chance? Iran would have devoured the Shiite areas of Iraq. Would it have gobbled up Shiite Syria? Maybe. The only question would be, would they allow an independent Kurdistan? This will probably still happen. Just delayed for a few decades. Oh, the Paris attacks? They occured  just after France announced they wanted to start trading with Iran, including nuclear technology.  Sunni ISIS absolutely is fearful of Shiite Iran. Mortal enemies til death. Saudi is also sunni. Saudi is also close to having nukes, if they do not already have them.

Things could really 'heat up' in the Middle East in ten years or so, and Israel would get caught in the cross-fire. THAT is why Israel does not want Iran to have nukes.

Slumberjack wrote:

As you say, menacing as the FLQ may have been in what was in fact a localized context, it amounted to a lot of pufferery that was dealt a blow by the heavy hand of the state way back when? In that case shouldn't normal levels of police and investigative activity under the existing laws have produced better ways and means?

But shouldn't that go for the government's response as well?  Shouldn't government weigh these matters a little more carefully so as to not have hastily deployed, armed soldiers and mechanized units patrolling the streets and arresting people on a list?  And quite aside from everyone's rights being placed in jeopardy, it's a huge waste of public resources that mainly produces the effect of shoring up the security creds of the party in power, along with any aspirants who come on board with it.

So it's better for governments to maintain over-reaction as an option, in order to roll it out based on a misapprehension of the relative facts?  Government must play it's part for dramatic effect?

It does help to explain certain things when you put it that way.  And here I thought that facts tend to bring reality more into focus, while distortion gets produced from a lack thereof.

This is nice after the fact. But do you REALLY want to chance what would have happened without the WMA? It is nice to say afterwards that it wasn't necessary.

But consider if the administration had grounded  the entire US air system BEFORE the 9/11 hijackers took off, acting on flimsy evidence that SOMETHING involving several planes was going to happen, but they didn't know what or where. But they new it was imminent. They knew SOME of the participants, but didn't know where they were, what airport, what city. There would not of course have been a  9/11.  The twin towers would still be standing. There would have been no evidence that there was ever a danger. After this horrible disruption in air service, passengers would be yelling and screaming that their rights had been violated. They had been kept grounded, inconvenienced. Trapped in airports.  And everyone would have said -"Just a handful of them? All they had were box cutters. What kind of threat could they have been? And how do you KNOW they were going to do something? Just speculation. No proof. Complete over-reaction. Should never have happened.'

But the planes were not grounded. And this handful of terrorists took down the twin towers. And THEN air traffic was brought to a halt.

Which scenario would you have preferred?

When catastrophy is averted, no one ever knows how bad it could have been. So everyone would challenge the necessity of the inconvenience.

It's when things are NOT done, measures are NOT taken, and disaster occurs, that everyone yells 'Why didn't you DO something? You just stood by and let it happen, you just relied on using 'regular procedures'.' Especially when there was so much evidence that something WAS going to happen.

Slumberjack wrote:

Well, after the fact, wouldn't it be a wise course of action if the people in charge reviewed their notes, the lessons learned, to try and avoid making the same mistakes as before?  As well, if the ones making the decisions are unable or unwilling to tell the difference between a threat that has been inflated out of all proportion and something far more threatening, and decide upon a course of action accordingly, then are we not being led by incompetents?

In a perfect world.

But that is exactly what Bill C-51 is all about. Look at the mistakes that lead to Paris. Look at the mistakes that allow Wahhabi schools to continue radicalizing our youth. Look at the mistakes that allow terrorists to fly under the legal radar. Look at the mistakes that allow terrorists free access to guns. And find a way to correct them.

Yes, we need to look at remedies for our mistakes. The resuult is Bill C-51, with all of its imperfections. But I have not heard a single suggestion from you or anyone else as to how to shut these schools down within the legal system.

Quote:

That is not a matter of fact.  It's conjecture.  You simply don't know if things would have been put off until the commotion died down. Regardless, the San Bernardino attack demonstrates that a highly intrusive surveillance regime like the United States still contains significant gaps that can be exploited by determined individuals. After all, it doesn't have to be as spectacular as a 9/11 for the media and security institutions to make hay out of it for the benifit of the public's indoctrination into whatever frenzy they want to whip up.

Absolutely it is conjecture. Stating that the October Crisis could have been neutralized using 'regular process' is ALSO conjecture. That is the point. After-the-fact is ALWAYS conjecteure. Before-the -fact is ALSO conjecture. Stating that Bill C-51 will lead to fascism in Canada is conjecture. Saying that Bill C-51 will erode our democracy is ALSO conjecture.

Conjecture is the name of the game in this discussion.

Quote:

A society that doesn't have to resort to gestapo/stasi/kgb tactics in order to shield the criminals in power from their share of the responsibility for the unmitigated disasters they've involved themselves with around the world.  That is what our Orwellian times has been designed to achieve.  In our case in Canada, a sense of immunity for the crooks in Ottawa that allows them to sleep better. Them and their idiot camp followings whose sick song and dance around the crimes against humanity that are being perpetuated overseas amounts to more and more repression and trampling on people's rights on the home front.  

And will you please tell me what that society IS, because human history has never produced one. It exists only in fantasy land, in fiction.

There is only one that ever came close, and that was a pure dictatorship. Does the name 'Solomon' ring a bell?

In fiction, King Arthur comes close. But also a dictatorship.

Or perhaps should we just make someone, for instance, like you as our dictator?

Humans are, by nature, a herd animal. We follow. The trick is, to find that leader that we can trust, give that person total control, and hope they demonstrate a complete social AND fiscal feduciary duty to us. You see, in the end anaylysis, our rights are never enshrined in law. They are enshrined in the actions of the individual who leads us. So democracy or dictatorship?

The problem with democracy is that it is lead, not by the best, but by the most popular. We don't select our leaders on the basis of social feduciary duty, only on the basis of financial feduciary duty. What was the main issue in the last election, the economy, or social responsibility? How did Harper get elected - on a policy of equal rights, or a policy of fiscal responsibility? How do we elect oiur leaders - based on how much trust we have in them with our lives, or how much trust we have in them with our wallets?

If we decide on a dictatorship, on appointing our leader, then how do they get 'appointed' a leader? Who does the appointing? Or is it done by 'the last man standing'?

We will never get the 'perfect leader' by voting them in, nor will we ever get one by appointing them. 

Hey, I have it. Put a computer in charge.

The problem with universal rights and freedoms, is that the criminals and terrorists also have them. The freedom to terrorise unless caught and prosecuted by overwhelmng evidence. The freedom to break every law unless caught. Stay under the radar, lawyer yourself up, and you become immune. The very nature of 'criminal prosecution' is to be allowed to legally violate the right to freedom of the convicted, and to withdraw their inherent rights in some fashion. That is the nature of 'punishment'. 'Cruel and unusual' means that we get to violate their rights by punishing them, just not in cruel or unusual ways.

There really is no way to get immunity from the 'crooks in Ottawa'.

Quote:

Fuck them.  I hope that last bit was situational.

I have, over time, learned to accept vulgarities as unfortunately part of the normal process of communication. Sometimes, they are extremely appropriate, as in 'shit happens'. Or, 'are we ever in deep shit'. Nothing else quite conveys the same meaning. 'Fuck the system' has a quality of expression that is unique in demonstrating frustration. And yelling 'fuck' when you stub your toe at night has a cathartic remedy that nothing else has. 

However, when used as a weapon against someone else, they are just as much an act of violence and assault against that person as a physical punch. Usually, using them in this fashion leads to a closing down of dialog, instead of facilitating it. Generally, the violence escalates.

Even worse, when the only contribution one has to the conversation is to use profanity, then I can't reeally see the merit in the discusion.

alan smithee wrote:

I'm not of fan of Manson but he didn't murder anyone. He encouraged others to do so and was sentenced to death which was changed to a life sentence when California banned the death penalty about a year after his conviction.

Death threats are crimes punishable by prison time. Hence, encouraging murder is a crime. And that's how Whabbism in Canada should be dealt with.

He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes committed by fellow conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.[2][3] 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

If the murders had not happened, he could not have been convicted. That is what I stated. Under the applicable law, 'planning' a criminal action makes you just as guilty as carrying it out. He did not just encurage, he aided and abetted. But the crime has to be committed. Conspiracy is much more tightly defined than 'inciting'.

The only way you can prove that someone made a death threat is to witness it specifically. If it is against an individual, then that individual can testify. Then you can prosecute the individual. But you can not prosecute the institution. And even then, you can just eliminate ONE of the schools. Every school you neutralize, ten more crop up. Suddenly, all your resources are concentrated in prosecuting every individual, every school. As if this is ever going to happen.Each one has to be prosecuted individually. I remember a certain event where over tens of calleged criminals in Quebec were set free, because they were notr brought to trial in sufficient time. How much are you willing to pay, in taxes, to neutralize the threat? We can't even afford the 'war on drugs', let alone a legal 'war on terrorists'. Canada would go bankrupt.

I suggest that you are thinking about 'hate' laws. But they are even more nebulous to prosecute. 

But more generally every time you 'broaden' a law, widening its scope, it infringes more and more on the rights of an individual to break the law without being caught. You know, without 'due process'. Eventually, the law gets so braod that it is thrown out of court. That is the legal system.

But as Paris has demonstrated, we don't have TIME to worry about what can be done in the legal system. We need an unlegal solution, while the courts sort out the legalities. that, esentially, is how Guantanamo came to exist. not legal, not illegal, but unkegal. beyond the legal system. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a sudden problem that no one had yet thought through.

We have had 40 years since the WMA to come up with a solution, and no one bothered. Too much of a fight with the 'Rightists' (from both sides of the political spectrum). There was no political incentive to run the gauntlet. Until Harper ended up in a closet, and Trudeau was in the room down the hall. I guess there is one now.

alan smithee wrote:

 

 And if somepone makes a death threat on social media or in front of witnesses,they're BUSTED.

 

Proof, please. Just because you say it, does not prove it. Cite ONE case where this has happened and lead to a successful prosecution.

But like I said, death threats have to be witnessed that the person indeed actually made them.  Making them public on facebook is pretty much doing that. making such statements in a classroom is only prosecutable if a witness in the classroom, at the time, is willing to state it. That means evvery classroom has to be infiltrated, to convict every person. And even then, they get replaced just as fast.

I believe someone on here made an indirect death threat against me. I believe 'Death to fascists' were the exact words. Does that mean this person gets BUSTED?

Oh, that was just free speech. Interesting defense. get all lawyered up, and you can say anything. Right?

alan smithee wrote:

So I'm no longer going to continue trying to debate with you. Good night and good luck.

Whatever made you think I was NOT trying to make a case for an ammended C-51? What a prophetic statement. Glad you finally recognize it.

When the opposing viewpoint differs from yours, you shut it out.

When all your arguements are defeated, you go away and STILL declare victory.

Interesting.

alan smithee wrote:

WRONG. Anyone reading this thread can see that you are cheerleadsing C-51. I haven't seen any evidence of you making a case that you want it ammended.

And so now you profess to speak for 'anyone'. Where did that come from? Did you take a vote? Is there some tab I have missed that allows this? Are you somehow possessed with the ability to read every mind of every poster?

What it DOES do is that it illustrates you have never actually taken the time to thoroughly read my posts. You just read them long enough to determine that I do not absolutely agree with your position. You are obviously not interested in MY position, just that it does not mesh with YOURS. Are you upset only because I do not totally agree with you?

Suppose I said 'black'. Would you blindly argue 'white'?