Ottawa Shooting: More victims... Our right to free speach.

It may not be a good time to start with the scrutiny of the events in Ottawa - after all - We have victims and heros to honor. No victims that were not given proper training to defend themselves and no heros that did anything more that their job if "sergeant at arms" means anything anymore, or maybe the bikers are the only ones that take that role seriously. But here we have Hockey games canceled, Bills taken off the table, day after day of coverage from every angle. I would like to spend time suggesting there should be just as much memory of those innocents killed by our soldiers and police but that would be a change of topic.

We lost a soldier on Wednesday, to a deplorable act. Our government was not behind the attack on our own parliament, but now they are going to use that attack to attack our freedoms.

The day of the attack in Ottawa, there was a bill to be tabled and discussed

The government had planned on discussing revisions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) act at the Conservative caucus on Wednesday. That discussion was postponed when a lunatic with a 30-30 had to be gunned down in the Hall of Honour.

The bill was expected to include changes “to strengthen CSIS’s ability to investigate threats outside of Canada,” Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said earlier this month.

The changes were prompted by two recent court decisions that highlighted blank spots in the legislation governing our intelligence agencies.

Blaney was expected to change the rules governing snooping on Canadians overseas and expand protection for confidential informants.

But then some nutcase managed to make it all the way up the hill with 2 separate cars, past police and past soldiers

The soldier appeared to have been shot in the back, said Peter Henderson, a journalist who was at the memorial at the time of the shooting. Other soldiers who were nearby doing drills at the time ran to help, he said.

Now the bill that was to be tabled on Wednesday - the day of the shooting - is going to undergo some changes before it is presented again. This time it will include a little more than tracking people over seas and share info with Allies. This new resolve will be stronger.

“This will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday evening in a televised address. He said that the violence in Ottawa and near Montreal will lead his government to beef up counter-terrorism efforts.

After the events of Wednesday, the government is going back to the drawing board and bring in broader changes.

What sorts of additions should we expect in this new bill?

In an interview with CBC’s Power and Politics, Blaney cited the deaths of two Canadian soldiers, saying: “We owe it to Nathan Cirillo; we owe it to Patrice Vincent; we owe it to those who are putting their lives at risk for us.” Asked about trying to prevent the spread of hate on the Internet, Blaney acknowledged that “there are some options that are contemplated at this point in time.” But he refused further comment on the reports citing unnamed government sources that said the government is contemplating legislation that would make it an offence to spread terrorist ideology or condone terrorist acts online.

Not confirmed by the government yet, but if it is being talked about and not lambasted by the Tories as being false, then it is pretty likely that this is what we are going to see.


How broad is this going to go? How big of an attack did we suffer? We have 2 nut-jobs, 1 managed to get passed dozens of people that just decided not to do their job for a moment and now the politicians they failed want to give them MORE powers. The government was already allowed security guards, they just need better ones.

Instead the Canadian government wants to NOT disclose identities of informants which will basically allow them to gain any testimony they want on anyone they want. They want to be able to arrest people for post on-line if the poster is supporting a terrorist organization. Where is the line drawn on that one. HAMAS comes to mind there. Classified as terrorists by our government yet they are democratically elected and the only organization that stands up for the Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza. Is condemning Israels actions against HAMAS, supporting HAMAS?

The "resolve" to this deplorable act of "terrorism" will not be against terrorists, it will be against Canadians freedoms of opinion and privacy. The drums are already rolling...

TORONTO – The internet has become an important recruitment tool for extremist groups, and every year its role is expanding, according to Lorne Dawson, a professor at the University of Waterloo. Related Stories Suspected Ottawa shooter Did deleted long gun data tell the story of Ottawa gunman’s rifle? Cpl. Nathan Cirillo. Honouring the fallen: The route of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s final journey home A woman leaves the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier after paying her respects at the National War Memorial, where Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, 24, was killed by a gunman, in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 24, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang Friends, public pay tribute to Cpl. Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa: ‘It’s hard to believe he’s gone’ “It’s virtually certain that you can say every single person that radicalizes, the internet plays a really crucial role,” Dawson said. “Even in the case of lone wolf terrorists it does because they’re sharing the material online and they often create a sense of community through their internet connections and share the material they’re plucking off of other sites.”

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) reported to Parliament in 2010, it is watching over 200 people in Canada with suspected links to terrorism or who are already radicalized. Experts believe those numbers could be higher. “I think you can say that for every of those 200 people there are five to 10 other people who are somewhat supportive of them and interacting with them and holding somewhat similar view,” said Dawson. “It’s a tiny little fraction of the population but in terms of a threat, it’s significant because we’re really talking about potentially several thousand people, of which several hundred may be quite potentially dangerous, of which then a smaller number may be really dangerous.”

At least there is some sanity left on the hill

Several MPs voiced concern over what former Conservative-turned-Independent MP Brent Rathgeber described as the "particularly problematic" idea of regulating thought and expression. "No law can possibly deter hateful thoughts from those who think them," he told CBC News. "Prohibitory laws will never be tantamount to mind control." He notes that there are already laws against inciting hatred through calls to action. "If one is opposed to the Israeli actions in Gaza, does that make her an anti-Semite? If one is against Operation Impact, is that a 'pro-ISIS sentiment'?" he wondered, referring to the U.S.-led military mission targeting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. "This is a very slippery slope … and is going to have to be dispassionately and reasonably debated."

Perhaps your opinion does not lead to the false flag conclusion....but mine does....!
And this legislation they are beefing up is the reason they encouraged such an attack......
That conclusion is inescapable....History is for those who pay attention to it......
These things get promoted by the government to further their agenda.....
It has become obvious to my way of thinking that this is precisely how we are subjected by the PTB.
and have been for a long time....

originally posted by: stirling
Perhaps your opinion does not lead to the false flag conclusion....but mine does....!
And this legislation they are beefing up is the reason they encouraged such an attack......
That conclusion is inescapable....History is for those who pay attention to it......
These things get promoted by the government to further their agenda.....
It has become obvious to my way of thinking that this is precisely how we are subjected by the PTB.
and have been for a long time....

My gut tells me your right, but I have nothing to point at. The only thing I have at the moment is that it happened - yes - and now sweeping changes are being discussed because of it. Changes that have been attempted before but lost traction. Remember the " your with us or your with the pedophiles" ?? I was even shocked at how many people jumped up and said they were with the pedophiles if it means allowing Vic's bill to go through. This one though, nobody wants to touch it with a 10 ft pole because to suggest anything nefarious would be to suggest something "outrageous" like a false flag.

I am with you, I just don't know how to present it at the moment.

I am old now, but once believed in the fairy tale of our freedom and our democracy very strongly......
At this end of the tunnel i have come to the conclusion that we are still basically a feudal society ruled by a class of people.....the bull# is a bit different from feudal days....but the results are largely the same......
The trend is towards a Nazi like security state with robotic expectations of its citizens and an exclusive ruling class.....
Further i have lost any hope of trying to turn it around in my lifetime.....

If there's one thing about the Harperites we know, it's that they will never let a tragedy go to waste. I can see this bill and dozens of other freedom limiting bills being tabled and slammed through before the demise of the Harper Government in 2015.

I found this. First I have heard of these and I have to say that I am a little disappointed that I did not come across this on ATS.

Ottawa War Memorial Shooting: The Top 5 Conspiracy Theories

1. Canada Raised Its Terror Level This Morning

2. Prime Minister Stephen Harper & Rifles

3. Rideau Centre Mall & ‘Multiple Shooters’

4. 4Chan-User Alleges Police Were Already on Scene Before Shooting

It says it is the top 5 but I could only find 4 on the website.

I do not agree with the false flag thing..you cannot prepare for everything and sometimes sh%t happens, what was it a month or so ago a few different guys got into the Whitehouse or real close..false flag?..you do not have to make stuff up as things get more twisted you just wait and it will happen.
I agree with most everything else.

There two main sources of "radicalization" in Canada.

First and foremost is the Internet. Radical Islamic groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda and others have become very adept at packaging messages to disaffected people who desperately want to be accepted and to "be part of something" - anything. Unfortunately, to those who are exposed to...and then fall under the spell of...these messages are answering a call to join a cause leading to their own self destruction.

I am sure that the RCMP, CSIS (and for that matter the CIA, NSA and FBI) know all of these websites and social media portals. It seems to me that we could cut out the delivery of 99% of this information - and the interaction (chat rooms etc.) between Jihadi wannabes by placing a warning page on the front end of the serving of these urls to web surfers.

Something like:

"Attention. The website you are about to enter has been identified as one that is sponsored or run by an organization which has been declared a Terrorist Organization by Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and other nations.

As a Public Service, we wish to make you aware that it is a criminal offence to provide aid, assistance or comfort to any organization so designated. Also you should be aware that, as a Terrorist Organization sponsored or operated website, National and International Police and Intelligence Services routinely monitor the content on this site, and keep detailed logs of the visitors to this site.

Regular visitors of the site you are about to enter can be subject to addition scrutiny, including lawful surveillance, to determine if they are committing, or are planning to commit, criminal acts."

Then provide a "Continue to Terrorist Organization Site" and an "Exit" button for people to click on.

The second source is face-to-face radicalization...at Mosques, and other Islamic meeting sites. This is a little more difficult, but should simply involve regular police work under existing hate speech laws, plus prosecution if/when people are recruited as foreign fighters for, or as donators to, designated Terrorist Organizations.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Frankly, I don't see monitoring Canadians outside the country as losing free speech whatsoever. (That includes in-country for that matter.)

One can still 'say' what one wants, whenever one wants. It merely increases the potential of consequences resulting from those comments.

That merely reflects the facts of life. Sure, you can say what you want...insult/threaten my family and I assure you there will be consequences...LOL.

If one is indifferent to the potential consequences then they will still say what they will.

"Free speech" isn't "free speech without consequence".

If one can't back up/defend your comments then STFU.. Just my opinion..

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Frankly, I don't see monitoring Canadians outside the country as losing free speech whatsoever. (That includes in-country for that matter.)

The outside monitoring was on the previously drafted bill that was to be tabled the day of the attack. In-country, that is an attack on freedom.

One can still 'say' what one wants, whenever one wants. It merely increases the potential of consequences resulting from those comments.

That merely reflects the facts of life. Sure, you can say what you want...insult/threaten my family and I assure you there will be consequences...LOL.

If one is indifferent to the potential consequences then they will still say what they will.

"Free speech" isn't "free speech without consequence".

If one can't back up/defend your comments then STFU.. Just my opinion..

Freedom of speech is not free if there is a gun to your head in case the "wrong" thing is said. Speaking of STFU...

originally posted by: mobiusmale
There two main sources of "radicalization" in Canada.

First and foremost is the Internet. Radical Islamic groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda and others have become very adept at packaging messages to disaffected people who desperately want to be accepted and to "be part of something" - anything. Unfortunately, to those who are exposed to...and then fall under the spell of...these messages are answering a call to join a cause leading to their own self destruction.

I am sure that the RCMP, CSIS (and for that matter the CIA, NSA and FBI) know all of these websites and social media portals. It seems to me that we could cut out the delivery of 99% of this information - and the interaction (chat rooms etc.) between Jihadi wannabes by placing a warning page on the front end of the serving of these urls to web surfers.

Something like:

"Attention. The website you are about to enter has been identified as one that is sponsored or run by an organization which has been declared a Terrorist Organization by Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Australia and other nations.

As a Public Service, we wish to make you aware that it is a criminal offence to provide aid, assistance or comfort to any organization so designated. Also you should be aware that, as a Terrorist Organization sponsored or operated website, National and International Police and Intelligence Services routinely monitor the content on this site, and keep detailed logs of the visitors to this site.

Regular visitors of the site you are about to enter can be subject to addition scrutiny, including lawful surveillance, to determine if they are committing, or are planning to commit, criminal acts."

Then provide a "Continue to Terrorist Organization Site" and an "Exit" button for people to click on.

The second source is face-to-face radicalization...at Mosques, and other Islamic meeting sites. This is a little more difficult, but should simply involve regular police work under existing hate speech laws, plus prosecution if/when people are recruited as foreign fighters for, or as donators to, designated Terrorist Organizations.

The criteria that classifies a supporter of terror can only get broader once the frameworks are in place. What politician got elected by telling potential voters that they are safe enough and if elected they would scale back security?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Freedom of speech is not free if there is a gun to your head in case the "wrong" thing is said. Speaking of STFU...

The legal concept of free speech/expression does, in fact, come with limits.

Some examples:

1) Hate speech
2) Libel/Defamation
3) Obscene speech/expression (like child pornography)

Those who exceed these limits are subject to legal sanctions.

BTW...kind of funny to be promoting the concept of unfettered free speech...then ending your post with "STFU"

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

The criteria that classifies a supporter of terror can only get broader once the frameworks are in place. What politician got elected by telling potential voters that they are safe enough and if elected they would scale back security?

This is true...and why we need to be sure that we have a strong and independent Supreme Court that is unafraid to abolish laws that go beyond the powers granted to Parliament under the Constitution (as they have recently done).

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Freedom of speech is not free if there is a gun to your head in case the "wrong" thing is said. Speaking of STFU...

The legal concept of free speech/expression does, in fact, come with limits.

Some examples:

1) Hate speech
2) Libel/Defamation
3) Obscene speech/expression (like child pornography)

Those who exceed these limits are subject to legal sanctions.

BTW...kind of funny to be promoting the concept of unfettered free speech...then ending your post with "STFU"

The way you ended your previous post which the OP was parodying.....
Come on if that's your best shot....your mag is empty.....That stupid nitpicky # is just immature and not up to ats standards of discourse....

a reply to: stirling

I do feel similarly. Old, sad and worn out.

My hope is that this is all cyclical.

The "OP", when I voiced my opinion, implied I should STFU. LOL.

Hypocritical to say the least.

We have a choice, trust in our elected officials or trust everyone out there not to take advantage of our freedoms.

For now, I see no alternative to trusting our gov't...trust but verify.

Feudal is exactly the description I'd use to define our gov'ts. No matter the original intents, we seem to gravitate to that system when left to our inclinations.

Perhaps that's how it should be...at least until it goes too far for many to stomach and it starts all over again.

We have corporations with zero morals and a repressive alternative which strips our wealth/freedoms as fast or faster than the corporations.

Go figure.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Freedom of speech is not free if there is a gun to your head in case the "wrong" thing is said. Speaking of STFU...

The legal concept of free speech/expression does, in fact, come with limits.

Some examples:

1) Hate speech
2) Libel/Defamation
3) Obscene speech/expression (like child pornography)

Those who exceed these limits are subject to legal sanctions.

BTW...kind of funny to be promoting the concept of unfettered free speech...then ending your post with "STFU"

You didn't have to STFU did you?

Whether the information is used for prosecution is not what I am worried about. If there is a law broken, then I would support a prosecution. The problem is what is considered "preemptive"? There will be a lot of information collected that may not lead to prosecution but files will still be gathered on potentials that - in combination - could point to some future wrong doing. Similar to the police laptops. Here in Canada, crown prosecution may not have a clue who you are but the police could still have a gig of info on you. This information could easily be used to quell movements like Occupy before they begin, because there is no stopping corruption, which makes those that enjoy the status quo accessible to it the information and even the tools themselves at all times.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

The criteria that classifies a supporter of terror can only get broader once the frameworks are in place. What politician got elected by telling potential voters that they are safe enough and if elected they would scale back security?

This is true...and why we need to be sure that we have a strong and independent Supreme Court that is unafraid to abolish laws that go beyond the powers granted to Parliament under the Constitution (as they have recently done).

I have not read the bill, but maybe you have a better understanding of this. Does the court have access to the name of informants. If they do, then I am all for not letting anyone but investigators and courts know the identities of probable cause. If they do not have to disclose to the courts... That is a check and balance I will never be so afraid to demand. I remember the T.V show 'The Wire' when 2 cops used "Fuzzy Dunlope" as the informant which was actually an unwarranted camera inside a tennis ball. Can that *snip* really happen? In the show it helped them take down a bad-ass drug dealer, so... good, but that is not the point.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What you seem to miss is the 'spying' on citizens has been going on for decades.

Not unlike pre-patriot act in the U.S..

Canada, England, the U.S. and apparently, Australia all had laws against spying on the own citizens.

This was circumvented by getting one of the above nations to do the spying on 'your' citizens then pass that information on to you. This was not illegal-even though it broke the spirit of that law- and was completely 'under the radar'.

At least, under the Patriot Act, it was theoretically under congressional oversight. That didn't last long before it too was subverted.LOL.

Yes. Freedom of speech AND STFU...when appropriate. Not contradictory at all. It's called common sense.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What you seem to miss is the 'spying' on citizens has been going on for decades.

Not unlike pre-patriot act in the U.S..

Canada, England, the U.S. and apparently, Australia all had laws against spying on the own citizens.

This was circumvented by getting one of the above nations to do the spying on 'your' citizens then pass that information on to you. This was not illegal-even though it broke the spirit of that law- and was completely 'under the radar'.

At least, under the Patriot Act, it was theoretically under congressional oversight. That didn't last long before it too was subverted.LOL.

Yes. Freedom of speech AND STFU...when appropriate. Not contradictory at all. It's called common sense.

You might want to let Harper know this bill is a waste of time then.

I'm not sure what you mean with the common sense part. What are you saying?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The common sense part. Is 'my' decision point of exercising my freedom of speech rights and when to exercise my freedom to STFU..

It's a gray/grey area. LOL.

In the U.S. truckers are liable to random drug tests. In Canada the truckers are not. It's considered a 'privacy violation'.

On the other hand, the sleeper portion of the truck is considered a privacy issue in the U.S. and in Canada it is not. One adjusts accordingly....

The freedom of speech laws or the lack of them are similarly loaded with grey areas.

The Harper proposed law can be taken as an affront or as an 'I have nothing to hide and if it catches jerks with bad intentions before they act, sobeit.'

Either way, with or without that proposed law ,abuses will occur.

I, for one, lean in favor of that law...barely. ( I was playing devil's advocate more than anything else.. )