• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

VDH suggested the dawn of Democracy was the outcome of ranks of equals standing in the field to defend their crops and farmland. We have now come full circle, with MPs taking up makeshift arms and preparing to sell themselves dearly in response to the attack on Parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mps-fashioned-spears-out-of-flag-poles-after-hearing-shots/article21278580/

Ottawa attack: MPs fashioned spears while Harper whisked into closet
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Oct. 23 2014, 8:07 PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 24 2014, 8:47 AM EDT

Stephen Harper spent about 15 minutes hidden in a Parliament Hill closet after a gunman stormed Centre Block where he and the rest of the Conservative caucus were guarded by MPs who’d fashioned sharp spears from flagpoles, sources say.

After they heard gunfire outside their meeting room door Wednesday, members of Parliament snapped close to 15 flagpoles to make weapons.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

‘You are so loved’: Lawyer describes efforts to save Nathan Cirillo
In wake of shooting, Ottawans talk politics: ‘Things will change on the Hill’
Harper vows to strengthen national security laws after Ottawa shooting
 
VIDEO
Video: Walking through the Hall of Honour the day after the Ottawa shooting
 
VIDEO
Video: Nurse who gave Cpl. Cirillo CPR shares her story
 
VIDEO
Video: No link between two soldier attacks: RCMP
Some positioned themselves on risers that flanked doors, ready to attack an assailant.

Further reading: What we know so far on the attack on Ottawa

“There were 15 flags up at caucus and all but two were taken down,” one MP recalled.

“These guys were up there holding these spears ready to impale anyone who came in,” the source said.

“It was that or get mowed down,” the member of Parliament said of the threat posed by a gunman who was ultimately shot dead by Parliament Hill security.

Mr. Harper, meanwhile, had been whisked into a closet in the Centre Block room shortly after the gunfights outside began.

There were more than 150 Tory MPs stuck in this caucus room during the ordeal.

Many MPs thought the Prime Minister had managed to get out of the room and didn’t know he was sequestered in what amounted to a cubbyhole.

“Someone knew there was a closet there so they stuck him in there,” the source said.

“So for a lot of people it was as though he was gone.”

The Prime Minister’s RCMP security detail ultimately rescued him and whisked him out of the building.

It was a surprise to many Conservatives when Mr. Harper emerged from his hiding place to exit Parliament Hill.

Some MPs kept their flagpole weapons as souvenirs.

“Everyone was taking their spears home,” the MP said. “I’m going to frame mine.”

One soldier was killed by the gunman Wednesday and a Hill security guard was shot fighting the assailant but is expected to make a full recovery.

Tory MPs reunited with Mr. Harper Wednesday evening at the Foreign Affairs building and Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre brought his spear as a memento, another source said.
 
Kilo_302 said:
“Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest,” the Prime Minister told the House of Commons. “They need to be much strengthened. I assure members that work which is already under way will be expedited.”

This is 24 hours after the attack. I don't think I'm being too dramatic or paranoid at all. History is replete with examples of governments doing this, just not usually at this speed.

I have no love for the Liberal Party, or the governments they have formed either. The War Measures Act is perhaps the worst overt violation of our rights in a democracy in modern Canadian history. I'm not aware of a Liberal government sending Canadian soldiers to Iraq on anything outside of the regular exchange programs between Canada and the US.  Similarly, Oka occurred while Mulroney was in office.

First, I would call this a knee jerk reaction in the aftermath of a traumatic incident, if it weren't for the fact that the government was already doing a review of policy with respect to terrorism.

Second, any measure that the Government comes up with needs to be able to withstand a Charter challenge, even when accounting for the Reasonable Limits clause.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That's the one thing that people seem to overlook or forget. In Canada your rights under the Charter are not absolute. Which is why we can have a more robust set of laws regarding hate speech, why the government can seize a person's passport to keep them from leaving the country even though you are guaranteed the right to enter, remain and leave the country as a Canadian Citizen.

Mobility Rights

Mobility of citizens

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Marginal note:

I like to compare the reasonable limits clause to the  concept that with rights comes responsibilities and the reasonable limits which may be imposed reflect those responsibilities.
 
cupper said:
why the government can seize a person's passport to keep them from leaving the country even though you are guaranteed the right to enter, remain and leave the country as a Canadian Citizen.

Passport Canada can revoke a passport or travel document of a Canadian citizen for a bunch of reasons*, but the rights you mention are absolute**.  It's just exceptionally hard to find another country to go to that will authorize entry to a foreign national if you do not have a passport.

* http://www.ppt.gc.ca/protection/revocation.aspx?lang=eng
** except when bound by ongoing legal obligations, IE court order
 
JS2218 said:
Yes, I am.

I understand and agree that it would be a lawful command to order someone to remove photos that specifically compromise OPSEC/PERSEC, give away critical mission details, etc.

But not long ago the military attempted to get everyone to sign an "appropriate comments on social media" policy and it failed miserably.  It failed because the military has no jurisdiction over an individual's personal social media accounts unless they're taking/circulating the type of photos mentioned above.

My point is not to argue whether it would be smart and prudent for every military member to keep an eye on what they post; rather it was pointing out that the military does not have legal jurisdiction to order someone to remove photos. I too would be interested in a lawyer's perspective.

I think you, and anyone who agrees your post above, should read a few things for education and awareness and ensure your subordinates, etc know this as well.  Keep in mind, the case below was a Class A Reservist and challenged based on that she was not subj to the CSD.  CDS decision pending but I suspect a Deny by the FA.

MGERC - Policies on the use of social networks  Don't forget to read the Case Summary, Case # 2013-55.

Issue

It is a reality of modern society that increasing numbers of Canadians, military personnel included, are using social networks and have access to them via a variety of electronic platforms, including wireless networks, both in the workplace and elsewhere. Current policies and directives of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) governing access to social networks are limited to the use of the Department of National Defence/CAF infrastructure. Case law indicates, however, that inappropriate comments posted by employees on social networks can lead to administrative and/or disciplinary measures, irrespective of the location, time or electronic platform used. The CAF should alert military personnel to the potential consequences they may suffer when posting comments on the social networks. 

** the MGERC review process includes Legal/JAG review steps.

 
Eye In The Sky said:
I think, and anyone who agrees your post above, should read a few things for education and awareness and ensure your subordinates, etc know this as well.  Keep in mind, the case below was a Class A Reservist and challenged based on that she was not subj to the CSD.  CDS decision pending but I suspect a Deny by the FA.

MGERC - Policies on the use of social networks  Don't forget to read the Case Summary, Case # 2013-55.

Issue

It is a reality of modern society that increasing numbers of Canadians, military personnel included, are using social networks and have access to them via a variety of electronic platforms, including wireless networks, both in the workplace and elsewhere. Current policies and directives of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) governing access to social networks are limited to the use of the Department of National Defence/CAF infrastructure. Case law indicates, however, that inappropriate comments posted by employees on social networks can lead to administrative and/or disciplinary measures, irrespective of the location, time or electronic platform used. The CAF should alert military personnel to the potential consequences they may suffer when posting comments on the social networks. 

** the MGERC review process includes Legal/JAG review steps.

If anyone has had the Harassment Crse, they will recognize the definition of "workplace".  If you are anywhere, with coworkers discussing anything related to your work, you are considered to be in the workplace.  So, sitting at home, chatting on a media with coworkers, in this case fellow Service members, you could likely find that being a workplace environment by that definition.  Just a point of thought.
 
Robert0288 said:
Passport Canada can revoke a passport or travel document of a Canadian citizen for a bunch of reasons*, but the rights you mention are absolute**.  It's just exceptionally hard to find another country to go to that will authorize entry to a foreign national if you do not have a passport.

* http://www.ppt.gc.ca/protection/revocation.aspx?lang=eng
** except when bound by ongoing legal obligations, IE court order

Your point about Passport Canada is well taken, but still falls within the the reasonable limits clause. Refusal and / or Revocation cannot be arbitrary, so it must be justified. The reasons listed are reasonable. The same with surrender of a passport while under court order.

If the right were absolute, no measure whatsoever could be taken to restrict that right, be it speech, mobility, practice of religion and so forth. Lawmakers and Courts could not make laws and uphold them that would in anyway restrict those rights.

There will always be situations where one's rights can be restricted or suspended. But those situations need to be justified, and hold up to review by the courts.
 
daftandbarmy said:
Ccunter-terrorism is not just an RCMP thing. There's a whole network involved, as we all well know. I wonder to what extent they'll just focus on the RCMP?

Curious to hear what you are inferring?
 
daftandbarmy said:
Ccunter-terrorism is not just an RCMP thing. There's a whole network involved, as we all well know. I wonder to what extent they'll just focus on the RCMP?
Good question - since we don't have the Terms of Reference, all we have is what the reporter wrote from what she heard from what her "source" said ....
.... the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which gathered evidence immediately after the attack, is seeking an independent third-party investigation of events inside and outside Parliament in which several of its officers were involved in the massive show of force that killed the gunman ....
This reads like the RCMP is the requestor, but for just the RCMP or for the whole of government?  I'm guessing the government would ask for an all-forces review of what happened. 

It will be interesting to see, if the story pans out, how wide a net the OPP will be allowed to cast, given that it's not just RCMP that was involved.

Meanwhile, a new graphic's making the rounds of the interwebs ....
 
SF2 said:
Curious to hear what you are inferring?

That there are other organizations involved in Canada's counter-terrorism efforts such as CSIS and CSE, and whether or not they will be looked at as well.
 
There are, as several people reported last week, overlapping and, possibly, conflicting responsibilities for security in the precincts of parliament - it gets worse on the streets around them.

I fully understand why the RCMP would like "fresh" and "disinterested" eyes to look at what happened last week and I'm sure they hope that a respected, very senior police officer will make some useful recommendations that will be hard to ignore ... hard, but not impossible. Many responsibilities, not just for security, are divided on the Hill between the House and the Senate and each place is, for constitutional reasons, reluctant to cede authority in one domain lest it be used, by the other place, to "empire build" in others.

You would think that life could be, and should be simpler, wouldn't you? Well, it isn't and it's time for a chat about that.
 
Hatchet Man said:
That there are other organizations involved in Canada's counter-terrorism efforts such as CSIS and CSE, and whether or not they will be looked at as well.


Just a slightly  :off topic: reminder:

    CSEC is, amongst other things, a foreign intelligence gathering agency ~ it spies on foreigners, listens to their phone calls, and reads their mail;* and

    CSIS is a counter-intelligence agency, as it's name implies, it is concerned with our security here at home. CSIS might need to gather some foreign intelligence to support its counter-intelligence goals,
    but, most often, its goals, the things it goes looking for, will be different from the things CSEC goes after.

It is generally agreed that intelligence and counter-intelligence functions ought to be kept (reasonably) separate and discrete.

_____
* Not "gentlemen" by Henry Stimson's infamous definition
 
RCMP Update: They're reviewing a video he made before the attack, and are tracking his spending.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/speeches-stat-discours-decl/2014/20141026-eng.htm?tw
 
Yes and both agencies (amongst others) are presumably involved in the country's counter-terrorism efforts, which is what DandB and I were referring to.  Are the RCMP only going to look at their piece of the pie, or the whole pie.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I think you, and anyone who agrees your post above, should read a few things for education and awareness and ensure your subordinates, etc know this as well.  Keep in mind, the case below was a Class A Reservist and challenged based on that she was not subj to the CSD.  CDS decision pending but I suspect a Deny by the FA.

MGERC - Policies on the use of social networks  Don't forget to read the Case Summary, Case # 2013-55.

Issue

It is a reality of modern society that increasing numbers of Canadians, military personnel included, are using social networks and have access to them via a variety of electronic platforms, including wireless networks, both in the workplace and elsewhere. Current policies and directives of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) governing access to social networks are limited to the use of the Department of National Defence/CAF infrastructure. Case law indicates, however, that inappropriate comments posted by employees on social networks can lead to administrative and/or disciplinary measures, irrespective of the location, time or electronic platform used. The CAF should alert military personnel to the potential consequences they may suffer when posting comments on the social networks. 

** the MGERC review process includes Legal/JAG review steps.

It was my fault for not being clearer. I will rephrase: in said situations (criticizing a superior, giving away official secrets, etc), there are specific rules (QR&Os, DAODs, CFAOs, etc) in place prohibiting such behaviour. However, under what authority would an order be given to remove pictures and descriptors that identify one as a member of the CAF?
 
Hatchet Man said:
Yes and both agencies (amongst others) are presumably involved in the country's counter-terrorism efforts, which is what DandB and I were referring to.  Are the RCMP only going to look at their piece of the pie, or the whole pie.
In this RCMP news release ....
dapaterson said:
RCMP Update: They're reviewing a video he made before the attack, and are tracking his spending.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/speeches-stat-discours-decl/2014/20141026-eng.htm?tw
.... here's the wording they use:
.... the RCMP has asked the Ontario Provincial Police to take complete conduct of the investigation of the shooting of Zehaf-Bibeau inside Parliament. The RCMP is confident we will have an authoritative and detailed account of the shooting, including a complete reconstruction of the heroic actions of those involved, in the weeks to come.
Barring any further statement/clarification by RCMP, this wording suggests to me that OPP'll primarily take apart who did what when inside Parliament, but it doesn't sound like a review of everything that led to the incident outside Parliament.
 
This goes back to what I was talking about earlier in the thread

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/26/not-every-person-who-feels-lost-is-mentally-ill-psychiatrist-warns-against-rush-to-portray-ottawa-gunman-as-crazy/

‘Not every person who feels lost is mentally ill': Psychiatrist warns against rush to portray Ottawa shooter as ‘crazy’

Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News | October 26, 2014 | Last Updated: Oct 26 9:21 PM ET

Groping for answers, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s mother said her son was mentally unbalanced and desperate to escape an unhappy life before he made his suicidal charge across the lawn of Parliament Hill last week.

But a renowned U.S. psychiatrist cautions against the rush to loosely label Zehaf-Bibeau as “crazy” or attribute his perturbed state of mind before gunning down Cpl. Nathan Cirillo to a psychiatric disorder.

“It’s always a dangerous thing to diagnose anyone from a distance, especially when they’re dead,” said Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus at Duke University who chaired the task force that produced the fourth version of psychiatry’s official manual of mental illness.

“Total mental balance is an ideal and elusive goal for any of us,” Frances said.

When something so horrific, bizarre and destructive happens, everyone searches for meaning, “and the natural, first thing that comes to mind is, well, he must be crazy,” Frances said.


“But most criminals, most substance abusers and most political or religious extremists are ‘mentally unbalanced’ at least some of the time,” he said. “Our man was all of these.

“This doesn’t mean that we have a psychiatric diagnosis that fits him, or a psychiatric treatment that would have cured him, or an explanation for his behaviour that satisfies, or that we could ever predict who, or when.”

Related
RCMP conducting threat assessment after Tom Mulcair demands 24-7 security in wake of Ottawa attack
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau made video that suggests Ottawa shooting driven by ‘ideological, political motives': RCMP
'I am sickened by it': Ottawa shooter's mother pens a candid letter about her 'unhappy' son
Rex Murphy: In our age of hollow celebrity, moral heroes emerge during a week of darkness
'I am sickened by it': Ottawa shooter's mother pens a candid letter about her 'unhappy' son

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s conversations were strange — he often spoke of the devil — leading the family to wonder, ‘Was he crazy?’

Read the letter …
In an emotional and lengthy written statement to Postmedia News on Saturday, Susan Bibeau said her son had a serious addiction to drugs and that his conversations were strange — he often spoke of the devil, for instance — leading the family to wonder, “Was he crazy?”

She said her son was an unhappy person who was “at odds with the world,” and so he turned to religion and Islam as a way to make sense of it.

After reading the letter Saturday, Frances described it as deeply moving, a final statement to the media written by a “decent, intelligent, emotionally aware and deeply pained and guilty mother” who understood her son “better than anyone else could, or will.”

But he is concerned, too, that describing the shooter as mentally unbalanced doesn’t necessarily mean he had a definable psychiatric illness. “Not every person who feels lost or has a messed up life is mentally ill,” he said.

It also suggests someone has to be crazy to do violent things. There is some increase in violence among the severely mentally ill, Frances said. “But it’s not enormous, and they’re responsible for only a tiny amount of the violence in the world.”

Mental illness can make people more susceptible to extreme religious or political teachings or fanaticism, he said. The killer may have “globed onto” radical teachings that brought meaning “to what was previously his meaningless life.

“And if he was willing to kill and die for this, that is regrettable. It is something that all of us have to begin to worry about — how we’re going to prevent others from finding meaning in this bizarre way, this destructive way,” Frances said.

It’s hard to solve those problems. It’s hard to solve the alienation of youth, particularly youth of first- or second-generation immigrants
Zehaf-Bibeau was a danger to society and to himself. But believing his actions those of a single, mentally sick man — a one-off aberration, an individual act — is easier than addressing the systemic problems that are dangerous and harder to deal with, Frances said, including disaffected youth and a society that permits easy access to drugs, weapons and bizarre political and religious extremisms.

“It’s hard to solve those problems. It’s hard to solve the alienation of youth, particularly youth of first- or second-generation immigrants,” Frances said.

“It’s easy to say, ‘oh, he’s just crazy.’ “

With files from Douglas Quan, Postmedia News
 
milnews.ca said:
Barring any further statement/clarification by RCMP, this wording suggests to me that OPP'll primarily take apart who did what when inside Parliament, but it doesn't sound like a review of everything that led to the incident outside Parliament.

It is a trite fact that it is common professional practice to have one police service review the actions of another when there is a shooting. Especially when it occurred on property that is solely under the jurisdiction of the federal government, I don't believe there is an SIU type of organization that exists for the sole purpose of investigating wild shoot outs on Parliament Hill. 

Certainly there needs to be a conclusion found in fact and in law that the killing was justified, and while there is nothing to suggest otherwise, all of the facts need to be on record. It turns my stomach to state this, but you can imagine the outcry, for example, should it transpire that the shooter may have attempted to surrender himself and then was subsequently shot and killed.  Did they continue to put rounds into hi after he was down and no longer in control of his weapon. Was he funneled into a shooting gallery by the design of the security system in place? Things of that nature ...  I know these are shitty questions but they will be addressed and people should prepare themselves for the answers, they may not like what they read...

   
 
JS2218 said:
It was my fault for not being clearer. I will rephrase: in said situations (criticizing a superior, giving away official secrets, etc), there are specific rules (QR&Os, DAODs, CFAOs, etc) in place prohibiting such behaviour. However, under what authority would an order be given to remove pictures and descriptors that identify one as a member of the CAF?

The issue is moot, anyways.  There is no new social media policy.  Someone "leaked" an old CFNCIU social media bulletin to CTV claiming it was some new social media policy and that its contents were orders.  I've been all over the DWAN this morning and there's not a hint of anything related to a new CF social media policy - no CANFORGENS, no messages, nothing on the national homepage, nothing.  And definitely not anything ordering members to remove anything from their profiles identifying themselves as CF members.
 
It seems some people are busy trying to change the messaging to "deranged man with a gun attacks parliament, therefore we need more gun control". What a lot of people fail to realize is that the terrorist organizations target vulnerable people to act on their behalf. It may involve both a mentally unstable person and a terrorist organization at the same time.
 
Colin P said:
It seems some people are busy trying to change the messaging to "deranged man with a gun attacks parliament, therefore we need more gun control". What a lot of people fail to realize is that the terrorist organizations target vulnerable people to act on their behalf. It may involve both a mentally unstable person and a terrorist organization at the same time.


Exactly, Colin: the IS** propaganda, which appears to be very slick and professional, aims to exploit the angst of people who have difficulty succeeding in the modern, sophisticated, complex 21st century Western lifestyle. IS** offers them a chance to be "somebody" on a "winning" team. Even the violence is calculated to appeal to a certain sort of young man.

IS** probably has no idea who Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and Martin Couture-Rouleau were, and it doesn't care, either. It's system worked: it planted an idea into a couple of weak, confused minds and just waited for the 'bombs' to detonate themselves.

I'm guessing both young men were "mentally unstable," although, of course, I have no qualifications to make that assessment. But I also suspect, with rather more confidence in my ability to do so, that their radicalization was part of a broad, long term jihadist campaign plan.

 
 
Back
Top