As most people must know, we recently had two terrorist incidents in Canada. On Oct. 20 a uniformed warrant officer in the Canadian Forces was deliberately run down and killed with a car. On Oct. 22 a young reservist was shot in the back and killed as he formed part of a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial. The perpetrator then ran into the Parliament Buildings where he injured an unarmed security guard who tried to stop him. Both perpetrators were killed within minutes of their crime. On investigation both proved to have been native-born Canadians who were "radicalized" converts to Islam.

On most social and political issues I am a flaming liberal by Canadian standards, and bear in mind that Canadian conservatives are generally flaming liberals by American standards. Nevertheless, I am a hard liner on the issue of terrorism.

I think the government should criminalize any expression of support for violent behaviour such as beheading or blowing up buildings and also any endorsement of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS. To give a concrete example, a long time ago I saw a photo of a demonstration in the UK with a sign which proclaimed BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM. As far as I am concerned, that should be grounds for a couple of months in the slammer followed by surveillance for as long as the authorities deem it necessary,

As for ISIS itself I think it can only be defeated by stamping it flat, as flat as we stamped the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. This will not be done merely by aerial bombing. It seems President Obama hopes to persuade mid-East nations to send troops, but so far no one has stepped up to the plate except for the Kurds who were already under attack. Who is he going to get? The Turks? The Saudis??? I would not expect much from surrogate troops like these. In the long run the western nations may have to send in their crack units. I don't know much about American military history. For the Brits that would mean the SAS, the Royal Marine Commando and the Royal Gurkha Rifles.

If we criminalize speech that is not a direct threat, no matter how distasteful, the terrorists win by causing us to give up our freedom for protection. There's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that says that anyone that gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Government regulation of speech creates an environment that threatens every freedom you have.

As for American involvement, we have fatigue from fighting two costly, unjustified wars rife with scandal and mis-management. The only politicians here eager to jump into that fight are shills for the big defense companies or war-mongers like John McCain. I suppose that since it appears that our reckless actions in the Middle East help fuel the ISIS problem, we are morally obligated to lead the solution. I wouldn't expect such cultural awareness from the American people, however.

(November 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If we criminalize speech that is not a direct threat, no matter how distasteful, the terrorists win by causing us to give up our freedom for protection.

The terrorists have already won, since we, as societies, have been willingly given up a lot of our hard earned freedoms and rights for the sake of a supposed security. That's been going on since 2001 and I'm more concerned about the future of democracy than I am about falling victim to a terrorist attack.

(November 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If we criminalize speech that is not a direct threat, no matter how distasteful, the terrorists win by causing us to give up our freedom for protection.

Bullshit. Inciting murder should be a crime if it isn't already. Is there some freedom to threaten murder with which all men are endowed as an inalienable right?

Back in October 1970, confronted with the homegrown terrorism of the Quebec Liberation Front, then Prime Minister Trudeau famously said, "Some weak-kneed bleeding hearts get upset at the sight of a man with a gun [the army]. All I can say is, Go bleed." My sentiments exactly.

(November 3, 2014 at 6:21 pm)xpastor Wrote: Bullshit. Inciting murder should be a crime if it isn't already. Is there some freedom to threaten murder with which all men are endowed as an inalienable right?

Back in October 1970, confronted with the homegrown terrorism of the Quebec Liberation Front, then Prime Minister Trudeau famously said, "Some weak-kneed bleeding hearts get upset at the sight of a man with a gun [the army]. All I can say is, Go bleed." My sentiments exactly.

Well, just remember that when Big Brother comes knocking at your door, you invited him over.

Quote: I suppose that since it appears that our reckless actions in the Middle East help fuel the ISIS problem, we are morally obligated to lead the solution.

I suspect all we'd do is make things worse.

(November 3, 2014 at 6:21 pm)xpastor Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If we criminalize speech that is not a direct threat, no matter how distasteful, the terrorists win by causing us to give up our freedom for protection.

Bullshit. Inciting murder should be a crime if it isn't already. Is there some freedom to threaten murder with which all men are endowed as an inalienable right?

Back in October 1970, confronted with the homegrown terrorism of the Quebec Liberation Front, then Prime Minister Trudeau famously said, "Some weak-kneed bleeding hearts get upset at the sight of a man with a gun [the army]. All I can say is, Go bleed." My sentiments exactly.

"Behead those who insult Islam" is not threatening murder. It is an obnoxious opinion, no doubt. Do we have any examples of the signs those marchers held inciting any murders? If so, prosecute the sign-holders.

If not, don't.

Quote:Bullshit. Inciting murder should be a crime if it isn't already.

American law is much more nuanced, X-P. I have no idea what the laws in Canada might be.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Quote:. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1] Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

(November 3, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "Behead those who insult Islam" is not threatening murder. It is an obnoxious opinion, no doubt. Do we have any examples of the signs those marchers held inciting any murders? If so, prosecute the sign-holders.

If not, don't.

It's not? Then the ones they have actually beheaded weren't murdered?

It is incitement to violence which is a criminal act.

(November 3, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Chas Wrote: It's not? Then the ones they have actually beheaded weren't murdered?

It is incitement to violence which is a criminal act.

Not according to the US Supreme Court.

If you are asserting that the beheadings happened because of those signs, I'd like to see your evidence. Otherwise, Brandenburg v Ohio pretty much renders your point nugatory.

eta: Minimalist got there first, credit where credit is due.