It could never happen here, could it?-Canada a Target?

[Zell_Dietrich]

So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.

    George,  I don't think I'm following you. :-S (Which is not surprising,  I'm kinda slow :clown  Which laws do some immigrants not want to follow? My family came here a few generations ago, as refugees from the wars (yup I'm Irish). Are you saying that because my family raised me with Irish values (bringing the environment they were fleeing from) that I am not as Canadian as others might be? 

    Over the years I've had allot of people try to convert me,  Jehovah’s,  Muslims, Christians and I even have had a few prodding jokes from my Jewish friends about my impending conversion.  Are these well intentioned people part of the problem that should be stopped by increased security restrictions? What restrictions can be put on ‘converting people’? What are the behaviors we are trying to stop and how effective would legal restrictions in this case be?

    Earlier in this thread people were saying we need to increase the restrictions for more security.  I understand the sentiment but I think of this the same way I understand people when they say "tough on crime". - It is to vague to have real meaning.  Can I ask for specific things that we should do that we are not?  I only ask because if we keep the conversation on the esoteric level of 'freedom vs. security' the debate is only in how you say things.  Where as if I was to say "Information gathered from torture has proven time and again to be unreliable and the use of torture not only flies in the face of what we as a people are supposed to stand for, it ensures not just hatred against us but justification for that hatred".  That is a meaty issue that we can dig into. (I wish I could say no pun intended, but it was)  Or I could say that “Canada has a legal and moral obligation to protect its citizens from outrages on their dignity and for us to be sitting back while our citizens are being tortured for information in our allies gulags it doesn’t just represent a breach of faith and law (pre and post-confederation) it also represents a justification for terrorist actions against us."

    Now on the issue of laws that have existed pre-confederation.  Habeas corpus is a great example.  http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm  Now the right to face your accuser and examine/question the evidence against you has been curtailed because it can fall into the category of national security. This has been done with many checks and independent reviews of the process.  In my humble opinion this is a safe temporary measure – for now.  The program needs to be very closely monitored for abuses because it is a very small step from a legitimate program for security to a tool used against a group of people for other reasons than the original intent.

    CdnBlackShirt,  allot (if not most) of the information used to justify the war in Iraq – for example the yellow cake (yum – better with icing) from Africa – was gained through torture.  How reliable was that information?  I know myself I’d say anything to appease the person water boarding me or doing other unpleasent things.  It isn’t that I’m a weak or principle-less person,  I just know that unless I kill myself during the torture (something a professional wouldn’t let me do) I will eventually break.  Everyone can be broken.  Here not to long ago it was information given to us by the local community that stopped our own “Oklahoma city” style bombing. If we loose the faith and goodwill of that community our chances of preventing future attacks drops significantly. (In my opinion of course)

 

[rifleman]

Apparently, freedom is also about being sickeningly passive and meek, and never fighting to preserve something worthwhile - like our nation and what it stands for.

You leave for your anarchistic utopia, where everyone is free to do as they wish. My country is worth saving with restrictions on demonstrably adversarial groups.

My country is equally worth saving without going down the road making blanket restrictions that do nothing to address the actual issue. Yes, be active in persuing those who wish to us harm however don't target everyone based on their race or religion or how they look. Go to war when other means haven't worked.

Heck we go your way, I propose to prevent school shootings, we should ban all firearms from the general populace, then we just have to worry about criminals having a gun.

and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent

 

[rifleman]

So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.

Where did I ever say that?

I am a Canadian and my rules and laws say Canada doesn't appreciate laws that target a specific race or gender. We demand proof that someone is guilty of something and that proof must be obtained within the confines of our laws. So if someone wants to act that way immigrant or citizen, I'll take the hardline intolerant view and say 'there countries that accept that and  they are welcome to go there.'

As for the conversion attempts, I do get a little disturbed when a JW comes to the door early on a saturday morning, but it sure beats being burned at the stake.

 

[warrickdll]

...
and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent

Just a quibble, but:

Without a means to enforce rules then all you have are parables, not laws. General consensus (continuous referendum) only works in ridiculously small groups of people; it is not a means to handle day-to-day laws in a society.

 

[rifleman]

Just a quibble, but:

Without a means to enforce rules then all you have are parables, not laws. General consensus (continuous referendum) only works in ridiculously small groups of people; it is not a means to handle day-to-day laws in a society.

Aren't parables stories? and consent doesn't neccessarily mean by referendum (i.e I generally don't go punching people in the face and I didn't adopt that rule because we held a vote on it)

 

[warspite]

Heck we go your way, I propose to prevent school shootings, we should ban all firearms from the general populace, then we just have to worry about criminals having a gun

Your going overboard here. Laws do not have to be all encompassing like that. 

and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent

Anarchy is a joke, it cannot work. I had a delightful argument so very long ago about anarchy on a different thread. I learned that anarchy is a" society without classes". Or as I have just learned....

and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent

So how exactly does this work? oh..... wait a minute... IT DOESN'T.  Let me give an example, in this case a highschool.
  Lets look at a your average highschool. It's a couple hundred kids from many different parts of town, from many different cultures, and from many different backgrounds.  In short a bit like Canada on a much smaller scale.  Now a school is governed by the principle, vice principle, teachers, counselors, Secretaries etc.....
  Now lets say that we removed this administration from the school, all the students have to still go to the school but they no longer have any administrators. Well by anarchy's definition all these students should work together by mutual consent, set down rules all get along and sing Kumbya. But this is not what would happen. This is:
-The school would first split into many factions of maybe 10-15 people each. So for a student body of 1700 you would get roughly 113 groups.
-At first these factions would get along and keep to themselves. There would be a few fights between people, after all there is no longer anyone to administer punishment for fighting so fighting is the best way to solve problems. At this point the school is falling into disrepair, after all no one to maintain it.
-Next the school begins to become polarized. Factions begin to gather in areas with others like them and start to melt together. Inside the factions hierarchies begin to form through opinions and violence. Fights have become more widespread but still remain on a person to person basis, but resentment begins to form between different factions.
-Now certain parts of the school are much more desireable than others. The stronger factions begin to force their way into these area's forcing other factions out. At the same time more and more factions keep melting together, wether with others forced out into the cold wet parts of the school or with the stronger ones in the warmer dryer interior. Personal fights now a way of life, violence between factions begins growing at an alarming rate.
-School now in open conflict. naturally the stronger fations wipe out and assimilate the weaker ones. Then they begin to turn on themselves. Eventually one prevails and ends up controlling the school through violence and a definite class structure begins to form with the strong at the top and the weak and those who are different down at the bottom.

So in the end anarchy's utopia has become basically a dictatorship where the strong rule by their might and the weak have no other choice than to bow down and keep quiet. If my government wants to place a few laws to keep Canada intact and Strong, to prevent anarchy and the results that follow it. I say all the power to them.

 

[rifleman]

Look if you are gonna attack a view because you don't neccessarily agree with, actually take the time to read it.

My comments started in essence with I would rather accept the fact that bad things are going to happen than to restrict my freedoms. I am not an anarchist and do not subscribe to any one ideal that alot have tried to paint me with. I was pointing out that I find it unacceptable to target one race or religon. I do not believe in being passive and I will most certainly roll over everytime someone says they are doing this for my own safety. I will not fight terror with terror but demonstrate through my action that what I believe Canada is all about is what is right.

Why is it that the same person who can easily say "I couldn't care less if all of one demographic is targeted as a potential terrorist because some terrorists are that demographic" be the same one to argue that guns in the hands of seemingly law-abiding citizen shouldn't be thought of as a potential school house shooter? Thats another thing I fight against, inconsisitency and hypocrisy

Not that I am professing the removal of all guns..How about I put my opinion in this context:

I will take the chance that I could (even accidently) be shot by some law-abiding citizen in order for all citizens to have the opportunity of owning a gun. Gotta love it

 

[GO!!!]

You are missing the point Rifleman.

Laws do not have to be sweeping or restrictive for the whole population.

Let's say, for example, we enact a law at a point in time, in which a certain demographic has a demonstrated propensity for violence on a large scale. This violence is perpetrated with the purpoted aim of fundamentally changing the society that we live in, forcing political change through violence, and adheres to a common ideology which is clearly articulated, even though many of the nuances of it differ.

Is it really an infringement on the rights of all Canadians to force this group to state the reasons that they require firearms, 10 "lost" passports a year and truckloads of fertiliser? Of course not. You have to differentiate between persecution and vigilance. If and when the current threat abates (and it will), we had the foresight to have renewals written into the law, so that it would simply slide into obsolescence and no longer apply, and at some point the time period would expire, and the law would no longer exist.

If you ask any police officer, (off camera of course) if racial profiling works, he will give you an emphatic "yes". We need to stop this charade of using civil liberties to shield our enemies in our own country from prosecution, when we know who they are and what they are up to.

 

[rifleman]

Not missing the point at all.

Ok then enact a law saying terrorists are wrong....wait there there are such laws .. don't hide under that most terrorists are a certain race or religion to harass the other 90%....bottom line. 

If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported

 

[GO!!!]

Not missing the point at all.

Ok then enact a law saying terrorists are wrong....wait there there are such laws .. don't hide under that most terrorists are a certain race or religion to harass the other 90%....bottom line. 

Vigilance does not equal harassment .

Is it harassment that I was pulled over in a checkstop last night and breathalysed - even though I was below the legal limit? Of course not! I was a twentysomething male driving a nice SUV away from a rowdy nightclub at one in the morning on friday night.

Are only 10% of the people on the road at one in the morning drunk? Maybe, but does that make it unreasonable to stop every vehicle in an effort to catch them? Of course not. It is a good law that requires large numbers of people to be inconvenienced for the greater good.

The bottom line is that we as citizens of this nation should not have to be in fear of our lives so that a certain demographic can feel that they are not being surveiled more than anyone else.

My life trumps their feelings, full stop.

If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported

.....by their Chain of Command or the lefties that they work for. We all know that the realities on the ground floor are not always what the upper levels choose to acknowledge. IMHO, most cops could clean out their respective towns and nighbourhoods in a week or two if they licence to do so.

 

[armyvern]

If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported

El toro poo poo. I just means that the honest answer won't be 'politiclly correct'.

 

[rifleman]

Actually I don't believe that you should be stopped just for being 29 and owning a nice car. Vigilence in that case is having more police out at 2 am and watching for sweaving cars. I for one don't fear for my life when driving at night, I am vigilant buy watching for the other drivers, particularly those sober ones that have a cell phone in their face.

and if what you believe is correct and is supported by the facts , what are you afraid of? Don't use anti-'political correctness' as a crutch.

 

[GO!!!]

Actually I don't believe that you should be stopped just for being 29 and owning a nice car. Vigilence in that case is having more police out at 2 am and watching for sweaving cars. I for one don't fear for my life when driving at night, I am vigilant buy watching for the other drivers, particularly those sober ones that have a cell phone in their face.

Then you and I have a very different interpretation of the term "vigilance", which leads to the inconvenient (for you) truth.

Checkstops, although a nuisance, keep drunks off the road by taking their licences away and punishing them. Furthermore, they provide a deterrent effect against others who may perpetrate the same crime. In the end, we are all better off, as a society, because we don't have to worry about a small minority of the population endagering our lives by being dumb.

I'm calling you out on this one - are you stating that we would be better served, as a society, if the police were not permitted to stop and question people as to their state of mind at night? How?

This same logic can be applied to terrorism. We know who the people are, we know how they act, we know their preferred targets and goals. Increasing surveillance on the demographics in question especially when they are engaged in activities that would be considered routine for the general population, may not be for this group.

An example of this is the recent arrests of a group of men in Ontario on terrorism related charges. Their activities (running around in the woods with high powered rifles and camoflage) were very suspicious. Having said that, my friends and I often perform the same (in broad strokes) activity, only we do it with hunting licences for deer.

Activity must be viewed through the lens of demography to prevent the waste of investigative resources on individuals and groups with a low probability to commit a crime.

and if what you believe is correct and is supported by the facts , what are you afraid of? Don't use anti-'political correctness' as a crutch.

Unfortunately, opposition to political correctness and common sense often share common ground.

Another example. The safest airline on earth is El Al, the Israeli national carrier. You would do well to research their security measures - the ones that made them the safest airline, and explain why they are incorrect.  When you find it impossible, state why please.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Well obviously there is a tradeoff between personal liberties and public safety.  Who can argue that?  I just think that we are crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed and giving up things we paid to high a price to get.  It is easier to give up a right than it is to get it back.  We have faced things far scarier than these guys,  I don't believe that we need to undo what we have cultivated for centuries.  We need to fight evil without becoming it. (Corny but true)  If/when we are attacked there will be a huge push for "safety" anything for "safety"  We need to guard against those who would take advantage of that,  as has happened in other places. (Pardon the dramatic tone,  I'm humorless when it comes to fundamental human rights and how we are now compromising on them)  :warstory:

 

[rifleman]

Then you and I have a very different interpretation of the term "vigilance", which leads to the inconvenient (for you) truth.

vigilant - "alertly watchful especially to avoid danger". <- Apparently my definition and Webster's
Have no clue what the inconvenient truth comment is all about

I'm calling you out on this one - are you stating that we would be better served, as a society, if the police were not permitted to stop and question people as to their state of mind at night? How?

The corollary is how does police stopping me at night for no reason do anything to serve society?

This same logic can be applied to terrorism. We know who the people are, we know how they act, we know their preferred targets and goals. Increasing surveillance on the demographics in question especially when they are engaged in activities that would be considered routine for the general population, may not be for this group.

An example of this is the recent arrests of a group of men in Ontario on terrorism related charges. Their activities (running around in the woods with high powered rifles and camoflage) were very suspicious. Having said that, my friends and I often perform the same (in broad strokes) activity, only we do it with hunting licences for deer.

Activity must be viewed through the lens of demography to prevent the waste of investigative resources on individuals and groups with a low probability to commit a crime.

There is a big difference between some one who chooses an activity that could be deemed a percuser to terrorist activity and being a certain race. Again I ask, do we ban all citizens from owning firearms so that anyone who has one can be deemed up to no good?

Unfortunately, opposition to political correctness and common sense often share common ground.

Unfortunatlely, common sense isn't all that common and oppostion to political correctness is all too often use as a crutch.

Another example. The safest airline on earth is El Al, the Israeli national carrier. You would do well to research their security measures - the ones that made them the safest airline, and explain why they are incorrect.  When you find it impossible, state why please.

It is impossible, as I am not in Isreal and have no desire to move there. But if  people would feel safer there, perhaps its the place to be.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Rifleman,

Do you or do you not acknowledge that greater than 95% of the current terrorist strikes against western targets are committed by males of Arab or South Asian descent between the ages of 18-40?

Now what percentage are committed by White, Black or Oriental grandmothers?

Bottom Line:  Pretending that all racial/gender/age demographics are equally likely to be terrorists is downright stupid and allocates resources in ways that dramatically increase the likelihood of the bad guys killing large numbers of our citizens. 

It isn't politically-correct, but it's reality....


Matthew. 

 

[vonGarvin]

I also note on some crime shows that when profiles based on certain crimes are made, a potential suspect is usually described in terms of gender, age group, income and social status.
For example: "I'd say it's a white male, 30-45 years old, lower middle class, doesn't relate well with strangers".  Usually (but not always), they are correct.
As for saying "always", well, you're going to hit a dead end.  Tim McVeigh proved that back in the 90s when he blew up the Federal Building in the US.

 

[rifleman]

Rifleman,

Do you or do you not acknowledge that greater than 95% of the current terrorist strikes against western targets are committed by males of Arab or South Asian descent between the ages of 18-40?

Now what percentage are committed by White, Black or Oriental grandmothers?

Bottom Line:  Pretending that all racial/gender/age demographics are equally likely to be terrorists is downright stupid and allocates resources in ways that dramatically increase the likelihood of the bad guys killing large numbers of our citizens. 

It isn't politically-correct, but it's reality....


Matthew.   

I wasn't aware that all the Arab and South Asian Males between 18-40 were doing Terrorist acts. I also be very surprised if many grandmothers were involved in terrorist acts in North America.

Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?

You are right it isn't politically-correct. In fact its legally-wrong.

Where do people get that I am proposing that we treat everyone equally bad?

I just stated earlier on that I am willing to accept the risk that something may happen rather then slip down the slope where we start harasing people just because of thier race or religion but apparently I've stirred up all the anti-left and anti-rights crowd who find a need to show me the errors of my ways

 

[rifleman]

I also note on some crime shows that when profiles based on certain crimes are made, a potential suspect is usually described in terms of gender, age group, income and social status.
For example: "I'd say it's a white male, 30-45 years old, lower middle class, doesn't relate well with strangers".  Usually (but not always), they are correct.
As for saying "always", well, you're going to hit a dead end.  Tim McVeigh proved that back in the 90s when he blew up the Federal Building in the US.

Perhaps if they weren't looking at terrorists as being one colour or race they might have seen clues Timmy was a potential? Just saying

 

[Kirkhill]

rifleman:

I abhor absolutes.  For me the world is a matter of probabilities.  If I put my hand in scalding water the probability is pretty high I will get burned.  On the other hand if I put the hand in and pull it out quickly enough the probability is that I won't get burned.  The problem I have is that I don't know how hot the water is, how fast I have to move or if I can move that fast.  So on balance I generally choose not to put my hand in scalding water and avoid the risk completely.  That's just me though.

100% of South Asian and Arab males between 18 and 40 living in Canada do not commit terrorist acts.  In fact I would be horrified if the number was over 0.1% of the total.
It isn't possible to say that 100% of White Males will not commit violent acts, nor that some of them will commit those acts because of some religious or political belief.
It also isn't possible to say that no white, 90 year old grandmother will decide to blow herself up one day in a final act of solidarity with Hamas.
On the balance of probabilities however I choose to be less concerned about 90 year old grannies than White males and white males than South Asian males.  Granny is not a significant threat.  White males are a significant threat but I stay out of high risk areas at high risk times of the day and in any event I am not likely to encounter a gang-banger with a nuclear device.  Arab males are probably no more likely to be violent than White males but while the white male may express his anger with a beer bottle it seems to be a risk of a different order of magnitude where there is the potential for a nuclear device to be involved.  (Not that I am expecting to bump into a drunken Arab on Hastings and disappear in a mushroom cloud).
The issue is risk management and probabilities.

I note that you say that you are willing to accept the risk "of something" rather than slide down a slippery slope.

You are a soldier so I assume that you are willing to accept the personal risk to yourself.  You may even believe that you can likely deal with most personal risks personally.  On those grounds it is unlikely that a personal threat will bother you. 

Most people also are quite willing to accept risk to the broader others in the abstract.  The broader and more abstract the greater the propensity to be willing to accept risk on behalf of people you will never meet.  The risk is theirs.  Not yours.

The problem that I find is when the ground is defined in the "3rd Party Personal".  The threat is not to you personally - I believe there are many heroes out there that willingly accept personal risk on the basis of their principles.  Likewise I accept that most people just don't connect to the world at large and so are willing to accept abstract risk (like the risk of being a tornado victim) on behalf of others.

However when the problem becomes being willing to accept risk on behalf of your mother, father, siblings, spouse, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws (OK that may be an exception), friends......are you willing to sacrifice them for your principles?  I have met many women (amongst my relatives and elsewhere) who deplore violence and capital punishment, and are generally of a pacifist nature, but when asked if they would stand by and watch their children shot while they stood on principle the answer is of course not.  (By the way the same pacifists, at least in my extended clan, are usually in favour of castration without anaesthetics for rapists.)

So, to you again, just to be clear, if not focussing effort on the high risk situation increases the risk to your immediate family are you still willing to accept that increased risk that they may die a violent death as a result of your principled stand?