10.21.2014 08:27 AM

We live in dangerous times

The murder of the CAF member in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu by an avowed ISIS sympathizer had political implications, and within minutes.  Yesterday, the Prime Minister stood in the House of Commons to speak about the terrible event – even before the rest of us knew it had happened – and explicitly linked it to terrorism.

“The individual who struck the two CAF members (Canadian Armed Forces) with his car is known to federal authorities, including the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team,” PMO later said in a written statement issued Monday evening. “Federal authorities have confirmed that there are clear indications that the individual had become radicalized.”

All that may be true, but all of us should be profoundly uncomfortable that any politician would be speaking about this tragedy – and assigning motive – before the police.  That is not the way our system works.  And it raises the distinct possibility that Harper and his advisors are willing to reduce a soldier’s death to a talking point.

If that’s true, then we are piloting through some very dangerous waters, indeed.  In the aftermath of the (strikingly similar) May 2013 murder of British Army soldier, Fusilier Drummer Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, British public opinion became dangerously inflamed.

English hate groups, like the English Defence League (which, by the by, is partnered with the Jewish Defence League here in Canada) used Rigby’s murder to whip up support. There were riots and violent street clashes, and dozens of arrests. Anti-Muslim sentiment exploded.

The Prime Minister and his government have a responsibility to (a) let the police do their job (b) ensure public opinion isn’t needlessly inflamed (c) resist the temptation to politicize a soldier’s death.

Will they do any of those things? Don’t hold your breath.

As someone once said, we live in dangerous times.




  1. Philippe says:

    You expressed my thoughts but way more eloquently than I could. You hit the nail on the head & I had the same dreaded feeling as you when I heard Harper.. the dark feeling of “uh oh, here he goes”.. Now is the true test, will he unite as a head of state should, or divide us (which is his natural tendency) & use this incident for political gain.

  2. smelter rat says:

    Another shameless performance by Harper et al. Certainly not something a real leader would do. He’s obviously in over his head.

  3. Al in Cranbrook says:

    The PM also has a responsibility for the safety of Canadians, and thus to inform them of potential and/or specific threats to that security when they become manifest.

    Far too many people in this country think we, Canadians, are somehow absolved having to worry about fundamentalist Islamism, and the very real threat is adherents pose.

    Damn straight these are dangerous times!

    • scot says:

      Thanks Al, for providing this perfect example of my comment bellow. I guess Harper should be informing us about auto recalls and such as they are more dangerous in Canada than terrorists ever will be. Aren’t you just a little bit embarrassed being such a raving chickenshit?

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        Yeah, you’re a real tough guy, eh Scot? Of course, it’s pretty easy going when you comfortably live half a world away from horrors like this…



      • Lyndon Dunkley says:

        Twenty-five years ago, few in Canada would have ever heard of Sharia Law, never mind the even fewer who would have thought importing Saudi jurisprudence to Canada was a sound idea. Now in some circles, not considering incorporating some Sharia Law in Canada is considered racist.

        Twenty-five years ago, if some one asked you to visually depict three spiritual icons of great religions, you may have a doodled a bearded man in white robes, a chubby smiling Asian man and a middle eastern man with exotic head gear. Now you would draw the first two and pass on the third for fear of a human rights violation or much worse.

        Twenty-five years ago, the term honor killing would generate the image of a young bride throwing herself on her husband’s funeral pyre. Now in Canada, we would just as often picture an angry father or brother murdering a female relative for some perceived slight.

        There are parts of every liberal democracy in Europe, where it is not safe to be a non-Muslim male or uncovered female.

        What accommodations for Islamic Fundamentalist are we going we going to make in the next twenty-five years? Forget setting aside hours at the local pool for Muslim women, why not have fully segregated public spaces. Maybe set up a little Jiyzah collection from the Dhimmis that live in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods.

        Is Islamic Fundamentalist a bigger statistical threat in Canada right now than faulty ignition switches? Of course not, nor will it be tomorrow or even ten years from now. In our instant gratification world, a non-instant threat is considered no threat at all. But culture wars are long wars and I think we are slowly losing this one.

    • MoS says:

      We used to have a term, “state sponsored terrorism.” We don’t seem to be much interested in it when the states sponsoring outfits like al Qaeda or ISIS or their various permutations, especially across North Africa, are our supposed Arab allies – Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia. Do you think this fairly well organized and effective Islamic State simply rose up out of the sands of the Arabian deserts? Who raised them? Who trained them? Who armed them? Who funded and continues to fund them? Western intelligence agencies have been tracking this business since prince Bandar bin Sultan blew a gasket when Obama refused to directly attack Syria. The former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has recounted the chilling chat he had with Bandar (a.k.a. “Bandar Bush”) in which the Saudi spoke freely about raising a Sunni army to crush Shia Islam for once and for all.

      Of course we did just ink a $15-billion deal with the Saudis to provide them with LAV armoured fighting vehicles which they use to keep their people’s democratic-instincts under control.

      If we wanted to defeat ISIS and al Qaeda and the next such groups these princes and sheikhs will raise we’d be bombing every palace and luxury compound in the Persian Gulf until they cried “uncle.” We won’t and they know it. And Harper is not going to rock that boat.

  4. scot says:

    Let the sleazy scare tactics begin. The funny thing is that Cons actually are scared. Look at Al Cranberry for example, he’s scared of his own shadow.

  5. Marc Andre Anderson says:

    Patrick Lagacé echoes your sentiment in La Presse this morning. His point: treat this guy like the vulgar, deranged street criminal that he is. No more, no less. http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/patrick-lagace/201410/21/01-4811121-evitons-de-glorifier-un-geste-criminel.php

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Sure, let’s do the politically correct thing and pretend that this incident and this perpetrator didn’t have a single thing to do with radical Islam…


      Fucking brilliant.

      • Marc Andre Anderson says:

        So if this insane loser grasping at loony interpretations of islamic teachings as a sorry excuse to carry out his delusions is an example of a terrorist associated to radical Islam, how do we designate the *actual* real, sinister, organized murderers that make up terrorist islamic organizations? God-sized super-villain overlords?

        Look, you’re free to apply your elephantiasis where you please. I just happen to think it’s misleading and ill-advised.

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          “…how do we designate the *actual* real, sinister, organized murderers that make up terrorist islamic organizations?”

          You mean all those actual real, sinister, organized murderers, of whom many in nations across the western world got started like this guy? The primary difference being, they found their way to Iraq/Syria, and this guy decided to stay home and do his thing here? And this choice makes one different from the next in intent and motivation precisely how???

  6. Kaiser Helmets 'n Motorbikes says:

    Excellent observation. As a dyed in the wool tory blue supporter, I was unnerved by the PM comments. This is not a time to play the politics (or the fear) card.

    As a 19 year old officer cadet in 1985, I recall warm summer evenings wondering the streets of St Jean listening to Paul Hardcastle song “19”, a techno synch post Vietnam anti-war anthem, on my Sony Walkman. Studying French at the “megaplex” and hanging out with friends at CMR was the most pleasant, peaceful, and least “military” posting of my time in the service. The people of the community were friendly to a fault, and that summer is one of my fondest memories of a very misspent youth.

    I suppose this sad event will fade into the background of our collective consciousness in the fullness of time. There are so many tragedies inflicted on our Canadian military community, I can’t decide which is worst; the politicians ongoing (Tory and Liberal) complete neglect of their responsibility to procure and deliver required equipment and weapons to our military, or their incessant sugary sweet covered hollow accolades and photo ops that serve no one but themselves.

  7. Bill says:

    (c) resist the temptation to politicize a soldier’s death.

    Yes, they better be careful with this considering under whose watch this happened.

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    This is a classic textbook case of the dangers that happen when you rush to put very limited information out there before seriously pondering what implications it might have when released to the public.

    Quite obviously, the PM was CSIS-briefed and no one wants that information to come out through a traditional police conduit. It has to be massaged and managed to seemingly protect our national security.

    Sounds like one of Rumsfeld’s Known Knowns.

  9. Ridiculosity says:

    Trust Harper & Company to adopt US-style fear-peddling in an attempt to brainwash the electorate:

    “Since 9/11 leaders of both political parties in the United States have sought to consolidate power by leaning not just on the danger of a terrorist attack, but on the fact that the possible perpetrators are frightening individuals who are not like us. As President George W. Bush put it before a joint session of Congress in 2001: “They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Last year President Obama brought the enemy closer to home, arguing in a speech at the National Defense University that “we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States” — radicalized individuals who were “deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents.” – 50 States of Fear, Peter Ludlow

  10. JH says:

    I disagree WK. As I understand it from media reports the PM had a briefing on the matter beforehand. I think the response in the House was the quickest and best way to alert the population. I also think the politicians and the panel, as well as host Evan Soloman made complete idiots of themselves on the CBC’s P&P in their treatment of the matter last night. The lastest reports and the death of one soldier will sadly only add to their discomfiture. On this issue I stand with the government, it’s time we got a whole lot more serious about home-grown terrorism. The latest poll from Abacus would seem to indicate that the population also agrees.

    • Warren says:

      I am one of the few Liberals who supports the action against ISIS. But I don’t support – and neither should you – slyly using this soldier’s terrible death to buttress the government’s position on the action against ISIS.

      • JH says:

        We’ll agree to disagree (one of the few times), I don’t think they needed to buttress their arguments. In this case I think they have the overwhelming support of the population.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          All wars start out with great polling support — sometimes due to ignorance writ large about same. Funny how quickly support is lost as the fighting grinds down. People quickly realize that it’s a waste of blood and treasure. Entirely predictable. Must the pattern be endlessly repeated?

    • doconnor says:

      The quickest and best way to alert the population was for the local police to make an announcement and treat it like the criminal matter that it is.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      I would find a lot more comfort if our so-called security agencies weren’t risk averse by letting things slide. Human nature strikes again. Tell me, how many threats to national security has CBSA “lost track of”…?

      And what about the RCMP’s surveillance of a radicalized individual? I suspect Paulson is already having a bird over that one.

  11. sezme says:

    When I heard that Harper said that, I was thinking how ugly and fear-mongering it appeared. Glad it wasn’t just me.
    This word “radicalized” sounds very dangerous to me. It seems like a great way of muzzling any inconvenient dissent. I honestly don’t give a hoot how “radical” someone is in their heart as long as they refrain from hate speech or violent acts.

    • Terry Brown says:

      Absolutely. This term “radicalized” is thrown around like it’s an illness. No joke, on 680 News yesterday, the ‘reporter’ must have used that word 11 times in a 45 second report.

      Did you hear about Jerry? No, what’s wrong? Oh, he’s got a bad case of radicalization. Oh dear, in this day and age you’d think we’d have a vaccine.

      How long before “radicalized” becomes a code word synonym for holding views different than those of the government?

  12. Liam Young says:

    100% manufactured to justify the horrific waste in the Middle East and Harper’s Crusade.

  13. Fraternite says:

    I’m not so sure that Harper did the wrong thing, assuming that he is of course eventually vindicated by the investigation.

    Too often these days the powers that be get up on stage and assure us that everything is under control, we should be calm, things will be okay, justice will be served, etc. when quite frankly things are not under control, we should not be calm, and they have no idea how things will turn out. To paraphrase Jean-Claude Juncker, it became serious and so they had to lie — after all, there’s nothing worse than the peasants becoming restless!

    In the sense that this guy was well known to investigators, things very well may be under control (and ironically that’s why nobody felt the need to tell us to be calm!). And there’s no doubt that’s good. But really, I assume the worst whenever I hear somebody in power telling me to stay calm these days, because quite frankly they only say that when they know the shit is hitting the fan, so to speak. That we didn’t get that speech this time is a bit comforting, actually.

    • scot says:

      Why the fear over a terrorist attack? Cripes, there are a thousand different dangers we face everyday that are more likely than a terrorist attack, even in the States. Seems to me that rednecks out west have killed more authority figures recently than terrorists have.

      • Fraternite says:

        So is two people who had their passports seized enough of a pattern, scot? Or is that more “fear-mongering”?

        You come on here, you call people chickenshits, you downplay hate crimes by comparing them to auto recalls (you would totally (and justifiably!) freak out if someone said he didn’t think violence against women was a problem because auto recalls kill more people every year), and you blame the victim for provoking the attack.

        It’s not my website so I don’t have the right to tell you where to go, but I hope that you take a look in the mirror today and adjust your future posting accordingly. Grow up.

  14. davie says:

    I hope they don’t set fire to the Reichstag.

  15. debs says:

    Harper is a spinmonster, and his performance yesterday exemplifies the depths that he will go, to bolster his failing poll numbers. He should have let the police finish their investigation but he was giddy with excitement im sure. I wonder if he paid ISIL to make the hit:P

  16. Attack! says:

    The whole thing stinks, how the PM/O handled this:

    1) isn’t it a violation of Privy Council rules, to quickly convert a national security briefing to a political issue by relaying it to their political operatives (the PMO) and someone not in the P.C. (the backbencher who asked the terror lob) to make their leader look more knowledgeable & stronger than the others?

    2) not only did they waste much of the national media & the public’s time by not disclosing what the foundation of the ‘terror’ link was, until about four hours later when the PMO released the radicalized statement, but

    3) keeping mum about the source of the unconfirmed report of terror also seemed akin to entrapment — designed to get Opposition members, pundits, Twittersphere etc. to say something intemperate about how wrong or premature the PM was, which they could then refute in time to make the TV news.

    4) apparently (as per CBC) the suspect IS one of the 90 they had under watch, which the PMO has *not* told us, so while they’re trying to use this to shore up their “You need us to protect you in dangerous times” motif, the fact seems to be, this one of the people their highly beefed up CSIS service just finished telling us was NOT an immanent threat, and which they did ^NOT succeed in protecting the soldiers from.

  17. Arnold Murphy says:

    There is something of the root cause of terrorism in Harper and his party for so quickly capitalizing on such a horrible incident. There is something to be said for not giving a terrorist what they want, in this case publicity is one of the intentions, although we see how committed this individual was in the way he ran from the scene hoping to escape. We have quickly given him a martyr’s death, and highlighted his cause, probably not the best strategy. But it’s worse than that, the continued rhetoric of Islamism by Harper is divisive and does nothing but inflame and further inspire radicalization. There are strategies for identifying and dealing with radicalization, they are a lot like crime intervention strategies aimed at youth, education and community modeling. But that would mean addressing the root causes of terrorism and committing what in Harper’s eyes is the equivalent of a fatwa on science or sociology in his own words. We as Canadians should be building bridges into these communities and inspiring change by living it ourselves, but instead Harper would like every Muslim in the country in fact every disenfranchised person for whatever reason, to simply not exist. We need to also take a look at how we conduct operations, if this fella was under surveillance why was he able to commit this heinous act, he took them by surprise but sitting in a parking lot for that amount of time should have solicited some sort of intervention. He got swift justice in any event, and the Quebec police look like they responded appropriately, he also serves as an example to those who think they can get away with something, there are consequences to acts like this, permanent ones.

  18. smelter rat says:

    It’s odd how quickly this terrorist was “neutralized”.

    • davie says:

      Same here…I read only the CBC news site story, but the witness’s story left me wondering why the guy was shot, and why he was shot to death with 7 shots.

      Of course, I might be more skeptical because we just had a shooting by police here in BC. The sister of the fellow shot to death by the police has a scathing response in writing that has serious allegations about police and media conduct.

      I am also wondering if the hit and run was on purpose; if on purpose , was it spur of the moment, or planned; if planned, might there be others the police should be contacting. If it was an accident, did the guy run because he is a creep, or did he run because he knew he was being watched.

      Anyway…I hope the next few days will let us know whether or not this is a terrorist incident or something more properly in criminal justice system.

    • Blue Grit says:

      He was neutralized and silenced very quickly. After surviving what appeared to be a very serious accident, he still had to be shot several times, until dead. Less than two hours later, the Conservatives are discussing the motive behind the incident, in the House. Very odd indeed!

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Oh, for Gawd’s sake! Here the loony lefty conspiracy theories.

      • smelter rat says:

        Assuming there is a full and transparent investigation, I guess we’ll find out eventually why a guy who somehow survived a serious roll over presented such a threat to the police that he was shot. I don’t care one way or another that he’s dead, but I’d like to know the truth, unlike people like you who worship at the Harper altar and his never ending bullshit.

  19. P. Bell says:


    Maurice Vellacott, Canadian MP, stood up in the House of Commons and disclosed that the Canadian Pension Plan had invested in Talisman Energy, a key player in Sudan: “Now most Canadians have blood on their hands thanks to the Finance Minister” – this was Liberal Paul Martin, soon to became Prime Minister after launching a bloodless coup d’état within the Liberal Party to oust then Prime Minister Jean Chretien. (Martin also praised dictator and Arab supremacist Momar Gaddafi as, “a philosophical man with a sense of history’’ – another master of the bloodless coup.)

    The Sudanese regime was eventually charged with crimes against humanity. 400 000+ traditionalist and Christian black Africans had been killed in mass-genocides by the Janjaweed Islamist proxies to maintain a cordon sanitaire around the oil fields. 2 million+ became refugees. It also came to light that organs of the Chinese Communist Party were arming the Janjaweed Islamist proxies. Beijing provided the Sudanese regime with diplomatic support, intelligence, tanks, artillery, helicopters and fighter aircraft; Darfur was flooded with antipersonnel mines. In short, the Liberal milieu was compromised to a shocking and unbelievable degree.

    As we witness the “radicalization” of Martin “Ahmad” Couture Rouleau, it must be asked whether the “root cause” of assassins like Rouleau is that the Liberal elite, especially in Quebec, has itself become radicalized. When Justin Trudeau speaks of his admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship,” think of the mass rapes and slaughter in Darfur. When Justin Trudeau unashamedly visits a Salalfist mosque, think of the Islamic State. By refusing to denounce Arab supremacism and the Islamist ideology, Liberals at the highest level have allowed it flourish.

    • smelter rat says:

      You’re delusional.

    • Ron says:

      It all depends on who is radicalized by whom, and for what cause. This Rouleau character is just another Raymond Shaw, brainwashed beyond rational thought.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      Speaking of radicalization…

    • Scotian says:

      P. Bell:

      It would seem the one appearing radicalized here is you. Regarding Trudeau and China, it seems to have been forgotten that he was making a joke at the time, which when you read/hear the ENTIRE comment is blatantly obvious and “perfectly clear”. Second, regarding the Mosque visit, it was within his riding, and one does not moderate those inclined towards extremism by exclusion but by being inclusive until they actual take wrong ACTIONS. Last time I looked, we are supposed to condemn actions, not thoughts and words alone (I thought this was why Conservatives hate human rights tribunals and hate speech laws, funny how that goes out the window here), nor had the government/police given Trudeau any reason to believe this Mosque represented a security threat, the fact that it was of a variant of Islam that has some connections to extremist groups does not inherently/automatically make that Church and its members such, last time I checked that is called guilt/smear by association. Not a nice thing to be doing.

      You on the other hand by trying to portray the Liberal party of Canada, especially the Quebec wing of it as somehow in bed/sympathetic with extremists/terrorists are showing your own radicalization. This is not the language of someone engaging in meaningful political dialogue or disagreement, this is base fear mongering, smearing, and all around pandering to lowest common denominator emotionalism. Your behaviour is more consistent with someone “radicalized” by an ideology/belief than those you claim are, and the “proof” you used to make your case only underscored that point. You have clearly been radicalized by Harperism, an ideology all its own these days, and one that is proving exceptionally toxic to the vast majority of Canadians, even within his own support base (although far too many within it refuse to see/accept it, or see it as still better than what they would get from his opponents, which completely misses the point)

      I have noticed recently a rather nasty upswing in the anti-French/Quebec rhetoric of those supporting Harper/opposing Trudeau and to a lesser extent Mulcair. This assumption that somehow Quebecois society is different enough from the ROC that it sympathizes with all the worst vices of humanity, in more than a few ways one could call that bigotry/racism. Now, I am not saying you were doing so in this comment, but your comments come extremely close to that line, enough so that you reminded me of some of the more openly scurrilous and vile anti-Quebec/French arguments used by Harper supporters to claim the only choice is Harper and how “real” Canadians will never again elect a leader from that dirty Province of Quebec. When one starts going down roads like this in your arguments against someone you are clearly risking being seen not just as a hater, but as someone showing prejudice instead of reason, which in any healthy democracy is to be reviled, not accepted, let alone considered reasoned argument. I would say you are skirting that line, but I am unsure about whether you crossed, it, but that you even went that close is not a healthy sign in itself.

      As I said, your own comment made you appear to be the true radicalized person here. Radicalization is not exclusive to the Islamic world after all, and for many of us the entire Harper regime since he assassinated the PCPC and birthed the CPC is an exercise in applied radicalization. The Harper CPC is clearly a radical variant of Conservativism with no real roots in Canadian conservativism, it is clearly rooted not just in the American conservative philosophy at its origins/base, it is rooted to some of the more radical/extreme, specifically Straussian, whose main proponents are Dick Cheney and his crowd. Harper is a radicalizer, both of his supporters, and increasingly of those who oppose him in the electorate, and that he acted the way he did yesterday only illustrated that in action. It is amazing how Harper suddenly feels it is appropriate to comment on ongoing investigations, especially ones literally a couple of hours old when there is a political aim for him, yet otherwise hides behind we do not comment on ongoing police investigations in other matters of public interest, one of the most infamous (and far Far FAR from the only) examples being the Nigel Wright Mike Duffy scandal.

      • James A. says:

        I recall something Soviet defector and former KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov said about Soviet brainwashing, “active measures”: “exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information; the facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with the authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom! When the military boot crashes his butt…THEN he will understand. But not before that, that’s the tragic of this situation of demoralization.” So too, with the Trudeauites, no number of fatwas, terrorist attacks, mass genocides, female genital mutilations, Sharia-controlled neigborhoods and regions, etc., will have the slightest impact on their thinking. The solipsism is so pathological only when they are about to be beheaded or crucified or their neighborhood is on fire or their airplane is hurtling towards earth will they say, “gee, that strange person I gaslighted all the time in haughty tones was actually right.” Too late.

        • Scotian says:

          James A:

          Well, at least your knives have some keenness to them as you try to stick them in my back, unlike the more usual smears I get thrown my way, and by setting your reply to my statement you clearly are aiming them at me. I am far from brainwashed by anyone, let alone any political figure, I just happen to have a different take on things than you, and I believe in knowing the full context of statements, especially when they are used to defame or define someone. I noticed that for all your lamentations you did not actually refute anything I was saying (which does make calling your comment a reply problematic, since it didn’t actually reply to anything I said), you just slyly insinuated that whatever I was saying was the proof of one so brainwashed as to be unable to see reality and therefore can be completely disregarded.

          BTW, regarding that little snark of yours about “exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information; the facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with the authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom!” the irony in your saying that to someone that has just provided hard core factual commentary about Harper’s political philosophy, its roots, and who else practices the exact same beliefs in the system it originated in, is almost the dictionary definition of projectionism. You are doing that which you are lamenting, and claiming another is doing and you do not even see it as you do it. I would suggest to you that before you argue others are unable to perceive reality as it is it behooves you to demonstrate your own ability first.

          I am not a “Trudeauite”, as you put it, although this time around I am favouring him and his party, but I am as I have always been a swing centrist voter. I am also a voter that has always believed that being informed about issues and the personalities leading parties was an important part of that, and what kind of political philosophies defined such. So I know, of my choices, where each stand, and it is that I use to base my choices on. So you can take your rather nasty backhanded slimy projection and take a good hard look in the mirror, because you far more resemble that which you accuse me of. I’ll credit you with a bit more wit than the usual flavour of Harper defender, but that does not change the reality nor the ugliness of what you did.

    • davie says:

      What would be the objective criteria for declaring a person to be ‘radicalized?’

      (I can’t keep up..I never di d know the objective criteria for the legal designation of ‘terrorist’ being laid on a person or organization. Each time the label is assigned, that assignment seems more and more political, rather than legal, to me. As I have mentioned here before, when a group like Islamic State, or whatever other names they have had, have been committing atrocities for over two years without being called ‘terrorist’ are called ‘terrorist the same time they grab Kurd controlled oil facilities just makes me suspect that politics is a part of the labelling. )

  20. Blue Grit says:

    Is it at all possible that this “radicalized” individual was merely mentally ill, and the incident of the passport seizure was all that was needed to confirm his delusion. His passport was seized because of suspicion of something he “might” do. He was not arrested, but essentially stripped of rights.
    When one is on the edge, this might be enough of a stressor to cause a breakdown. I believe we need to look a little harder at the activities of these clowns playing spook.

  21. Derek Pearce says:

    If Luka Magnotta had committed his crime in the name of Islam instead of psychotic vanity then people (& the govt) would’ve be reacting the same way. This deranged Rouleau guy indicates as much of a national security threat as Magnotta, there’s really not much difference between the two of them. But the National Post and Tories would rather milk this for all the fear it’s worth.

  22. patrick says:

    I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand that there is a small percentage of people – 1 in 500,000 lets say – who are so damaged that when a “glorious cause” gains the headlines those people will jump on board and become more radical than radical to fulfill the psychotic rot festering in their brain. It has nothing to do with the “glorious cause” and everything to do with that small percentage of damaged, delusional people. The cause doesn’t matter because it could be any cause, the ‘current cause” is merely a justification for generally horrific actions.
    Unfortunately, these horribly misguided individuals (at the very least) are exploited by both sides to instill fear and fan the flames of hate.
    And it works.

  23. Not a Party to any Party says:

    Harper finally got what he wanted; something he could claim as a terror attack on Canada. And in an election year, no less. He couldn’t have planned this any better himself. Or could he?

  24. vildechaye says:

    I think Harper is playing the politics of fear but I also think the reactions here are just a bit too sanguine.

  25. e.a.f. says:

    P.M. “lets go to war and kill them” harper probably considers it his lucky day. He has his election issue.

    Canada wasn’t asked to join the soiree in the middle east, harper volunteered our 6 jets. What happened is of no surprise to me. It was inevitable. You poke someone in the eye with a stick, they will hit back. While P.M. “lets go to war and kill them” harper was busy cutting budgets everywhere in Canada and that includes the military, RCMP, etc. terrorists were making plans. Upping security wouldn’t have cost that much but harper didn’t care, he wanted to stay his other dragon, the deficit. harper and his herd didn’t understand you don’t need to remove people’s democratic rights to make a country safe, but sometimes it costs money.

    its interesting this happened in Canada and not places like England, France, U.S.A., but they had “warm ups”. England learned its lessons with the IRA, France with Algerian rebels back in the day, and the U.S.A, well they had 911. We are lucky to have gotten off so “easy”. Lets pay attention and tell harper to stop flapping his gums about going to war and making like some warrior type. He’ll probably get to give the eulogies and even more publicity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.