I don't see why the two have to be seen as mutually exclusive. You can be both mentally ill and a terrorist. In fact, I'd say that pretty much every terrorist is a little bit off in the head, so debating whether he was one or the other kind of misses the point.
Also, there are lots of mentally ill people, and I'd imagine that the vast majority of them don't go around committing carefully planned murders. The fact this one did makes it seem pretty likely that there were some religious/political motivating factors at work, no?
Agreed. I don't view it as an either/or scenario.
There's also the fact that, given current common assumptions about what terrorism is, it paints this as an attack by outsiders, when it was one of our own who did this. Someone we probably failed as a society. We need to deal with that before we use it as an excuse for more American-style adventuring trying to save the world.
I completely disagree with your portrayal of what calling this attack "terrorism" necessarily entails.
A) The reaction to a terrorist attack
does not necessarily require "American-style adventuring" in response. I think that to tie "counterterrorism" action to "American" behaviour is quite warped, frankly. (which is to say, newsflash: we've been engaged in counterterrorism action in this country for 13 years. It's not a new thing.)
B) On the contrary, calling this "terrorism" is not to paint these attacks as attacks by "outsiders", but it is to wake Canadians up to the fact that we
do have a problem with radicalization here, at home, with our own sons and daughters. It did not begin with the attacks last week. We've had the Toronto 18, we've had the conviction of Khawaja, we've had the conviction of Misbahuddin Ahmed, we've had Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser charged in the VIA rail plot, we've had three London youths travel to Algeria with two dying in the gas plant attack. And we have the 90+ identified "high-risk travellers" who have expressed an interest in fighting in Syria.
Acknowledging terrorism in Canada is not about painting the attacks as performed by "outsiders", it is not about launching airstrikes and special forces raids halfway around the world, it is about acknowledging that Canada is not a special snowflake, somehow immune from the same tensions, conflicts and threats that have faced the United States, Britain, Spain, Australia, and others.
Desperately avoiding using the "T" word and painting last week's two events as solely or mainly a mental health issue will do nothing to solve the problem this country has with radicalization.
(which is not to say that Parliament must specifically institute new laws/powers in response to last week's events. The nature of Couture-Rouleau's attack, in particular, makes me believe that there is nothing that could have been done to prevent it.)
I personally believe that there is a certain irony in Mulcair demanding an RCMP protective detail 24/7 immediately following the attacks, with him declaring this week that it was a simple criminal act, not terrorism.
Tom, if it was a simple, random, criminal act, why did you not need a 24/7 protective detail two weeks ago, but now you do? If it was a simple, random, criminal act, why was the RCMP response of "we will conduct a thorough threat assessment on the subject and get back to you" not acceptable, when that response was acceptable to Justin Trudeau having his f'ing
home broken into?
There was a Saudi diplomat that got pulled over for drunk driving in Ottawa(which is ironic considering the punishment a regular Saudi citizen would get if they were caught drinking in SA), but he refused the breathalyzer and had to be let go because of diplomatic immunity. I'm not sure how much I like a foreign diplomat using public taxpayer funded roads to endanger Canadian citizens and then being let go due to diplomatic immunity.
That's nothing. As I recall, a Russian diplomat actually killed someone in Ottawa in a drunk driving incident in the 90s, and, naturally, got off scot free due to diplomatic immunity.
I remember doing security for the Francophone Summit in Quebec City in 2008, and getting briefed on if you catch a diplomat committing an offence: "welllll, you can't arrest them or charge them......but you may be allowed to detain them to prevent the continuation of the offence....maybe......"
as an aside, I thank you for your kind words and thoughts for the Moncton victims. I did not "know" them, but one of them was only a week behind me in training, and so at a minimum, he was someone whose hand I would have shook.
Borque's motivations were to 'start a revolution' he's a terrorist just as much as Bibeau is. They both should really be treated the same. But they aren't and that's a sad thing.
For obviously apparent reasons, I am
all for treating Bourque as a domestic terrorist, and all the "Freeman on the Land/Sovereign Citizens"-types along with him. That's a whole other can of worms, unfortunately. I will have to take solace that that asshole will have no chance of parole for anywhere between 50 and 75 years.
I want my income tax cut!!!
I know we've been over this a lot, but......are you sure you're a Liberal?
