Soldier shot at National War Memorial in Ottawa

[Jacob]

It is weird though. He clearly wanted to be a terrorist and it's clearly political but, like another recent attack (can't remember which) it feels almost more like a school shooter/spree killer kind of situation.

Yeah exactly. It feels very much like someone unhinged looking for something to latch on to.

[CountDeMoney]

It is weird though. He clearly wanted to be a terrorist and it's clearly political but, like another recent attack (can't remember which) it feels almost more like a school shooter/spree killer kind of situation.

Yeah exactly. It feels very much like someone unhinged looking for something to latch on to.

Gee, I wish I had said that.  But Jacob did, so that makes it cooler.

[Jacob]

BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?

I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?

[Jacob]

Gee, I wish I had said that.  But Jacob did, so that makes it cooler.

You did say that, and it sounded pretty cool IMO.

[Martinus]

Yi, what argument are advancing exactly?  "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"

...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.

But that's obvious too surely

If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topics in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?

It seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.

[CountDeMoney]

If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,

Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.

[Barrister]

BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?

I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?

Best I can find:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314

Bill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:

Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."

Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.

The proposed bill would also:

Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."

So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.

Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".

[Martinus]

If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,

Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.

But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.

[Malthus]

Yi, what argument are advancing exactly?  "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"

...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.

But that's obvious too surely

If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topics in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?

It seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.

It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.

Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.

[Martinus]

BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?

I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?

Best I can find:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314

Bill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:

Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."

Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.

The proposed bill would also:

Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."

So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.

Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".

These measures are pretty scary, to be honest. Not letting even the judge (not to mention the defence attorney) to asses the credibility of a witness by withholding his or her identity seems like the very antithesis of a fair trial.

And frankly, I can't for the life of me see how any of these measures would prevent or in fact in any way relate to the incident at hand?

[Martinus]

It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.

Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.

Ok, maybe this called for a different thread (that ship has sailed now, I guess), but I was never making my arguments here in response to this specific incident. I believe I jumped in after I saw some of the people here making some incorrect claims in response to Viking's and Yi's posts (I think mainly crazycanuck saying that since all religions have crazies, there is no difference between violence motivated by Christianity and violence motivated by Islam).

[Malthus]

BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?

I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?

Best I can find:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314

Bill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:

Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."

Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.

The proposed bill would also:

Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."

So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.

Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".

More here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27/bill-c-44-csis-spy-watchdog-conservatives_n_6055512.html

[Sheilbh]

If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?

I've said the 'problems of Islam and possible solutions' should obviously be talked about. I think there'll be lots of different perspectives on what problem there may be and what solution there could be. I didn't mean to suggest there's an obvious answer. As I say I'm not even sure there's an obvious question.

It seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.

I don't know who you guys are here. I think Melanie Phillips is roughly just inside the pale. I can't speak for the rest of the guys but I'm equally very, very happy to cast George Galloway outside the pale.

[Martinus]

Ok, sorry, Sheilbh, I misunderstood your post. As for "who you guys are", I can't speak for Yi or Viking, but I consider myself pretty close to Bill Maher on this issue (and a slew of others, I guess).

[Sheilbh]

But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.

Again I wouldn't say Farage is anywhere near as extreme or unacceptable as Le Pen or Wilders. One's still a fascist and the other does demonise people. For me that's unacceptable - and I've a friend who lives in the Netherlands who does the opposite and blames the rise of Wilders on their lack of political correctness

And frankly, I can't for the life of me see how any of these measures would prevent or in fact in any way relate to the incident at hand?

Could anything? I don't mind the sound of those changes, but my understanding is Canadian intelligence knew about this guy, thought he was a risk to go to Syria. But short of mind-reading I don't see how they could have predicted this.

It's another of those differences with 'terrorism' there's no network here, there's no plans. That sort of thing is, I imagine, really tough to stop.