# Alexandre Bissonnette: QC Mosque shooter- 29 Jan 2017



## dapaterson (29 Jan 2017)

Multiple media reporting this story

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686

Radio Canada: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1013825/centre-culturel-islamique-quebec-mosquee-tirs-policiers

#SteFoy is trending on Twitter.

- mod edit to add date to thread title -


----------



## McG (29 Jan 2017)

Happy to hear arrests have already been made.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jan 2017)

More coverage:

BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38793071

Montreal Gazette: http://montrealgazette.com/storyline/4-reported-dead-at-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque

Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/29/witnesses-report-shooting-at-mosque-in-quebec-city.html


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More coverage:
> 
> BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38793071
> 
> "Local newspaper Le Soleil said it had obtained information that one of the suspects was a 27-year-old with "a Quebec name", and one had an AK-47 automatic weapon in his possession. Police, however, have not released such details."



So a french name? and I highly doubt it was an AK-47


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Jan 2017)

Haha, trying not to say it was a white dude.  

Also, highly unlikely it was an AK.  Probably a CZ 858


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jan 2017)

My prayers for those killed and injured in this tragic attack.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Haha, trying not to say it was a white dude.



True, Quebec has always been a strong hold with some supremacist Ideology, groups like La Meute, Soldiers of Odin and Atalante Québec are very prevalent in rural Québec . And so on. You don't see many Jewish groups willing to do this sort of thing in Canada, so the prime suspect would be white supremacists.

Edit * I had a typo in 'You do see many Jewish groups willing to do this sort of thing in Canada', I ment to say don't.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My prayers for those killed and injured in this tragic attack.


Same ...

This from the Mayor, in English ...


> *Statement from the Mayor of Québec City regarding the attack at the Québec Islamic Cultural Centre*
> 
> Québec, January 29, 2017 – The Mayor of Québec, M. Regis Labeaume, has made the following statement concerning the attack that took place today at the Québec Islamic Cultural Centre:
> 
> ...


... and in French


> *Déclaration du maire de Québec concernant l’attentat au Centre culturel islamique de Québec
> *
> Québec, le 29 janvier 2017 – Le maire de Québec, M. Régis Labeaume, a fait la déclaration suivante en lien avec l’attentat survenu aujourd’hui au Centre culturel islamique de Québec :
> 
> ...


The PM's take:


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today after hearing of the fatal shooting at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec located in the Ste-Foy neighbourhood of the city of Québec:
> 
> “It was with tremendous shock, sadness and anger that I heard of this evening’s tragic and fatal shooting at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec located in the Ste-Foy neighbourhood of the city of Québec.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (30 Jan 2017)

My thoughts and sympathy to the families affected by this tragedy.

Encouraging to hear the statements of support and sympathy from our leaders at all levels.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jan 2017)

My deepest condolences to the families of the victims of this terror attack.  I was listening to the radio on the way into work today and was quick to note the politicians are using the "terrorist" word, as they should.  Too bad the gutless bastards didn't use it in the other attacks in St. Jean/Ottawa/Strathroy.

A source was saying that one of the attackers may be from Morocco, as well they might be University students.  Will be interesting to see what comes to light.  Glad that they caught two of them.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Jan 2017)




----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jan 2017)

Xxx


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jan 2017)

I also extent my condolences to the families, loved one and friends of the victims.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was listening to the radio on the way into work today and was quick to note the politicians are using the "terrorist" word, as they should.  Too bad the gutless bastards didn't use it in the other attacks in St. Jean/Ottawa/Strathroy.



Actually, PM Harper did.  Ref this article

..._our thoughts and prayers remain also with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was killed earlier this week by an ISIL-inspired terrorist_

_Fellow Canadians, in the days to come, we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had. But this week's events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world._

Maybe you were thinking about the 6 Canadians who were killed in the Burkino Faso terrorist attack, where Trudeau wouldn't use the word terrorist...

_In a statement, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, “On behalf of all Canadians, we offer our deepest condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of all those killed and a speedy recovery to all those injured. We are deeply saddened by these senseless acts of violence on innocent civilians.

“We have offered assistance to the Burkinabé authorities in their investigation of this terrible crime.”
_


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

Here's some of the latest re:  who's in custody from Reuters, with a geeky fact check below ...


> Two suspects were under arrest after a shooting at a Quebec City mosque on Sunday evening killed six people and wounded eight, police said on Monday, and a source said one was French-Canadian and the other was of Moroccan heritage.
> 
> At least one of the suspects in the attack by two gunmen was a student at nearby Université Laval, the source said.
> 
> ...


... and via FOX News:


> One of two gunmen who shouted 'Allahu akbar!' as they opened fire at a mosque in Quebec City was of Moroccan origin, a witness and local media reported Monday, revealing the first details about the attackers in the massacre that killed six men.
> 
> The terror suspects were identified as Mohamed el Khadir and Alexandre Bissonnette, a court clerk told The Associated Press. The two men were arrested soon after the shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre Sunday night and were expected to appear in court later Monday, police told reporters.
> 
> ...



*<GeekyFactCheck>*


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe you were thinking about the 6 Canadians who were killed in the Burkino Faso terrorist attack, where Trudeau wouldn't use the word terrorist...
> 
> _In a statement, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, “On behalf of all Canadians, we offer our deepest condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of all those killed and a speedy recovery to all those injured. We are deeply saddened by these senseless acts of violence on innocent civilians.
> “We have offered assistance to the Burkinabé authorities in their investigation of this terrible crime.”
> _


And to build on what the _Ottawa Citizen_ wrote, here's what the Info-machine shared in full on that one (also attached if link doesn't work):


> *Prime Minister condemns terrorist attacks in Burkina Faso*
> 
> Ottawa, Ontario
> January 16, 2016
> ...


Has the online statement been re-written since then?  Not according to the version captured @ archive.org the day it came out.

_Everybody_ edits & triages information when they share it - that's why I'm a believer in reading more than one version when you can to get a better chance of getting something approximating the whole story/truth/reality.
*</GeekyFactCheck>*


----------



## ZeiGezunt (30 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> True, Quebec has always been a strong hold with some supremacist Ideology, groups like La Meute, Soldiers of Odin and Atalante Québec are very prevalent in rural Québec . And so on. You do see many Jewish groups willing to do this sort of thing in Canada, so the prime suspect would be white supremacists.



why would Jewish groups be interested in killing Muslims?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jan 2017)

> _Everybody_ edits & triages information when they share it - that's why I'm a believer in reading more than one version when you can to get a better chance of getting something approximating the whole story/truth/reality.



Thanks for correcting me on that one...I hadn't seen that or any other article with the T word in it from that one.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Jan 2017)

ZeiGezunt said:
			
		

> why would Jewish groups be interested in killing Muslims?



Because they don't like each other very much?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

More from French-language media:  only one suspect, identified as Alexandre Bissonnette, with the other ("Morroccan origin" student?) identified as a "witness".
-- _*"Alexandre Bissonnette est le seul suspect de l'attentat"*_ (QMI/Sun Media)
-- _*"Un seul suspect sur les deux individus arrêtés hier, affirme la SQ"*_ (_La Presse_)

(source, with a bit more detail on FB profile of alleged accused)


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thanks for correcting me on that one...I hadn't seen that or any other article with the T word in it from that one.


I hadn't seen the T word in MSM out of the mouth of Prince Valiant, either, which is why I checked.  Not a problem - I suspect you're _way_ busier than me most days, so who has time to hunt down _everything_?  Hence, the "geek" part of my check  ;D


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

ZeiGezunt said:
			
		

> why would Jewish groups be interested in killing Muslims?



Ever follow the news about Israel/Palestine?


----------



## ZeiGezunt (30 Jan 2017)

Well, yeah. But outside of Israel, Jews tend to see themselves more in solidarity with Muslims than not [source: am Jewish and involved with the Jewish community].

Either way, this is tangential to the topic of this thread.

I offer my sincere condolences to the victims of the mosque shooting. May the villains who committed this heinous, disgusting act be brought to justice, and may the families of the victims find peace.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

ZeiGezunt said:
			
		

> Well, yeah. But outside of Israel, Jews tend to see themselves more in solidarity with Muslims than not [source: am Jewish and involved with the Jewish community].
> 
> Either way, this is tangential to the topic of this thread.
> 
> I offer my sincere condolences to the victims of the mosque shooting. May the villains who committed this heinous, disgusting act be brought to justice, and may the families of the victims find peace.



To be honest there are hate groups in pretty much every ethnic/religious group. Even Buddhists have did some violent shit at times. 

I have to say though I agree with you, it seems Jewish Communities outside of Israel (and not all in Israel) are very peace loving individuals. (dont  take this as an attack on Israel. That situation is just fucked on both sides)


----------



## AirDet (30 Jan 2017)

Have any of you noticed the angry hate-filled posts in the MSM forums on this attack? I find it sad to see "Canadians" supporting these horrible acts. One of the reasons I joined was to make sure crap like this wouldn't happen in Canada. I guess hatred knows no borders anymore (if it ever did).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> True, Quebec has always been a strong hold with some supremacist Ideology, groups like La Meute, Soldiers of Odin and Atalante Québec are very prevalent in rural Québec . And so on. You do see many Jewish groups willing to do this sort of thing in Canada, so the prime suspect would be white supremacists.



That is a very dangerous generalization to be made when in ignorance gryponv. What possible basis have you got to support something like that (and don't just recite the names of some allegedly white supremacist orgs in Quebec, as you did above, unless you can prove that they actually are prevalent to a greater extent than anywhere else in Canada).

You claimed to be a Newfie that moved to Winnipeg, then joined the CF and is now a leading seaman. Not much of a background to talk about rural Quebec.

Let me chime in: I have been living in farmland Quebec for the last 30 years, am heavily involved locally, in the Chamber ofCommerce, Small Farmers Association, my village's administration on various committee, on the local and the regional Hockey organizations and in politics at the provincial and Federal level in my "rural" ridings. Funny enough, while we know of  few crackpots "pure laine" French Canadians, we don't have any signs that there is any prevalence of these groups you mention nor that the rural area's of Quebec are socially strong holds of racist/white supremacist positions.

Don't generalize on things you don't know. And especially, I implore you (like many others) to stop this constant Quebec bashing every time something comes out of Quebec instead of the Rest of Canada. We are no better than other Canadians, but we are also not worse. This constant Quebec bashing is not only counter-productive, it is also, in its own way "racist" in those who profess it i the ROC, especially when they don't even know what they are talking about.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

AirDet said:
			
		

> Have any of you noticed the angry hate-filled posts in the MSM forums on this attack? I find it sad to see "Canadians" supporting these horrible acts. One of the reasons I joined was to make sure crap like this wouldn't happen in Canada. I guess hatred knows no borders anymore (if it ever did).



It's everywhere, Facebook, Reddit, etc. You dont have to look hard. 

Hate is out there, its has nothing to do with country, race, religion, creed.

We are a diverse country, and that diversity means there are always fringe groups. White hate groups especially have deep routes in Canada, they just haven't gotten much press last few years. They are still around though.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

I have to appologize for a typo earlier and was misunderstood.

I said 'You do see many Jewish groups willing to do this sort of thing in Canada'

I ment to say 'don't see many'


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You claimed to be a Newfie that moved to Winnipeg, then joined the CF and is now a leading seaman. Not much of a background to talk about rural Quebec.



I don't claim to be an expert in anything quebec, and it wasn't a stab at rural Quebecois in general. I grew up in Labrador West, spent a good part of my later teenage years in Fermont, Sept-Ilses, Baie-Comeau, and a few towns in between. 

Fermont absolutely despised English people, especially the community of Labrador West. To the point if you were from there it generally wasn't safe to walk around by yourself (as a teenager).

I had a GF from Fermont for a time who's family were pretty much white supremacists, they were part of a group, but I don't remember the name. I was Naive at one point and put a swastika on my arm when I was with them(something I feel horrible about even to this day), went home, and my brother seen it and proceeded to kick my *** ( I love my brother for that). They hailed from the Rural area outside of Quebec City (as most people who lived in Fremont were Transients who when done working, moved back home. 

As I got older I got to see a bit of the drug traffics in the area, which was mostly Quebec biker gangs. They had a lot of parallels with skin heads themselves. 

There was a lot of hate there, especially towards Natives.

I won't get into all my details, but I do have that and more first hand experiences with racism, especially in Quebec and Parts of Ontario. 



> Don't generalize on things you don't know.



So please, I know you went through my posts to get a feel for who I am, but it is not all encompassing, there are things I don't regularly talk about. But please don't assume I don't know about something just because of my posting history on here. 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And especially, I implore you (like many others) to stop this constant Quebec bashing every time something comes out of Quebec instead of the Rest of Canada. We are no better than other Canadians, but we are also not worse. This constant Quebec bashing is not only counter-productive, it is also, in its own way "racist" in those who profess it i the ROC, especially when they don't even know what they are talking about.



I don't constantly bash Quebec either, I used my own experiences in quebec to respond to a post about something that happened in Quebec. If something like this happened In Winnipeg, or Newfoundland, or Toronto, or somewhere else I had experience with. I would also relate my personal experience. I personally don't have a hate on with Quebec. I would love to live there except I suck at french. I love the culture, food, and generally the people. So I implore you, to not take it so personally. I don't get up in a tizzy when people bash Newfoundland. And that happens a lot in Canada. Being the Butt end of arguably most of the jokes. I'll end, if I offended you. I apologize, because that wasn't my intention or goal.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-mosque-shooting-suspect-to-appear-in-court-monday-afternoon



> The lone suspect in the shooting at the Quebec City mosque Sunday night is believed to be Alexandre Bissonnette, a 27-year-old student at Université Laval who was studying anthropology before switching to political science.
> 
> The Sûreté du Québec will not confirm the identity of the suspect, who is expected to be arraigned at the Quebec City courthouse Monday afternoon. Several media reports say Bissonnette is the suspect.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

A few more updates ...

_*"Donald Trump calls Trudeau in wake of Quebec mosque shooting"*_ (The Canadian Press, via macleans.ca)
_*"'We will open our hearts': Trudeau urges love and unity in wake of deadly mosque shooting* -- Donald Trump among international leaders offering support after attack that left 6 dead ..."_ (CBC.ca)
_*"Police search for motive in deadly terror attack on Quebec City mosque"*_ (Global News)
_*"White university student named as the sole suspect accused of killing six men at Quebec City mosque - one day after Canadian PM condemned Trump's immigration ban"*_ (U.K. _Daily Mail_)
_*"Quebec mosque shooting 'lone wolf' attack: Canadian authorities"*_ (Reuters)
... with this from Canada's public safety minister:


> Today, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, released the following statement related to last night’s shooting incident at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City.
> 
> “Our heartfelt sympathies are with the families and friends of those affected by this horrific attack in Quebec City.  We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life and our thoughts go out to the community in this difficult time.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

And this from the Vatican:


> *Condolences from the Holy Father for the victims of the terrorist attack on the mosque in Québec, Canada, 30.01.2017*
> 
> The following is the message of condolences for the victims of the terrorist attack that took place late yesterday evening in a mosque in Québec in Canada, sent by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin on behalf of the Holy Father Francis to Cardinal Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, archbishop of Québec.
> 
> “Upon learning of the attack in Québec in a prayer room of the Islamic Cultural Centre, claiming numerous victims, His Holiness Pope Francis commends to the mercy of God those who lost their lives, and joins in prayer in the suffering of their loved ones. He expresses his deepest sympathy to the injured and their families, and to all those involved in the relief efforts, asking the Lord to bring them comfort and consolation in their ordeal. The Holy Father once more strongly condemns violence that engenders such suffering, and implores of God the gift of mutual respect and peace. He invokes the comfort of divine blessings upon the families concerned and those affected by this tragedy, and upon all Quebeckers”.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2017)

From the Government of Canada
http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1461849633127



> Notice of half-masting
> 
> Masting period: From January 30 until further notice
> 
> ...



Now...I deplore this act of murder in a place of worship as a vicious attack on members of our society, but Half Masting the Canadian Flag on ALL Government buildings, including the Peace Tower, seems to be an extreme case of knee jerk Political Correctness.  

It is also interesting to see how quickly the words "terrorist act" came off the tongues of some political and MSM personalities.

[For the Rules as to Half Masting the Canadian Flag, follow the link to Section 16 and you will find all the Sections.]


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From the Government of Canada
> http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1461849633127
> 
> Now...I deplore this act of murder in a place of worship as a vicious attack on members of our society, but Half Masting the Canadian Flag on ALL Government buildings, including the Peace Tower, seems to be an extreme case of knee jerk Political Correctness.
> ...



I agree totally, if a public servant was injured or worse I understand it. Not to diminish things, but half masting for citizens is wrong. Unless it is something much more wide scale. 

We didn't do it for random joe blow who killed a family, or whatever. 

You are right it is political correctness run a muck, but We do have the SJW PM.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I agree totally, if a public servant was injured or worse I understand it. Not to diminish things, but half masting for citizens is wrong. Unless it is something much more wide scale.
> 
> We didn't do it for random joe blow who killed a family, or whatever.
> 
> You are right it is political correctness run a muck, but We do have the SJW PM.



Mass shootings in Canada are exceptionally rare and they are, imo, a national tragedy when they happen:  they are fueled by hatred and fear of the differents which is absolutely not what Canada stands for.  The PM has more than enough justification to Half-Mast the Flags on such a day.  And the law affords him that lee-way.  

I am not sure what we lose by having the Flag half mast....


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is also interesting to see how quickly the words "terrorist act" came off the tongues of some political and MSM personalities.


I don't know -- what's wrong with using the word "terrorist" here?  Initial report caveats notwithstanding, this could be a crime by someone radicalized by a group, belief or ideology, doing something _"in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act ..."_

Meanwhile, the latest:


> A French Canadian known for far-right, nationalist views was charged Monday with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder over the shooting rampage at a Quebec City mosque that Canada's prime minister called an act of terrorism against Muslims.
> 
> Suspect Alexandre Bissonnette made a brief court appearance and did not enter a plea in the attack that left six people dead during evening prayers Sunday. Wearing a white prisoner jump suit, his hands and feet shackled, he stared down at the floor and fidgeted, but did not speak.
> 
> ...


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Mass shootings in Canada are exceptionally rare and they are, imo, a national tragedy when they happen: ...
> 
> I am not sure what we lose by having the Flag half mast....



I agree that they are a tragedy, I think it lessens the effect of the 'half mast'

La Loche shootings ~ Half mast only in Sask (just as big a national tragedy) (4 dead)

2014 Edmonton killings ~ Only in Edmonton (9 dead)

2014 Moncton shootings ~ Cross country (Service members died, 3)

2014 Calgary stabbing ~ Only Calgary (5 dead)

2011 Claresholm highway massacre ~ No half mast (4 dead)

2006 Richardson family murders ~ No half mast(3 dead)

2006 Dawson College shooting ~ Seems to be only a half mast at the college itself (2 dead)

Full disclaimer here, I may be wrong on some of this, but all the readily available info shows no national half masts for any of these massacres (not all of them are shootings) This list is not an exhaustive list, but what I could find/remember on a short notice.

My point is, this is the first time a cross nation half mast was issued outside of events involving public servants( in recent history, 10 years, I never went back farther), the only real thing different is this has been labeled Terrorism ( I personally think its should be racism not terrorism,  but they are both two sides of the same coin arguably).

So its not what we lose, but what do you set as the the measuring stick for civilian deaths, because if it was done for this, it should of been done before. 

I would of been fine if cities outside of Quebec decided to do it on their own accord. It still feels like a move for political points (I hate that I feel that way). 

This is a tragedy I agree true and true. The good thing is we can have an open minded debate on this.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2017)

Because it wasn't done in the past prevents us from doing it now?  They are so rare and tragic, I don't see any reason why not.  It doesn't lessen the effect of the Half-Mast, in fact, it reminds people that the flag is a symbol of what we stand for.


----------



## gryphonv (30 Jan 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Because it wasn't done in the past prevents us from doing it now?  They are so rare and tragic, I don't see any reason why not.  It doesn't lessen the effect of the Half-Mast, in fact, it reminds people that the flag is a symbol of what we stand for.



Ok fine, when the next one happens (hopefully a long time). And they don't half mast because say it wasn't terrorism, or it was contained between friends/family. Or it didn't involve just one group. Or any other difference. Would you cry foul, or would that be ok?

It sets a new precedence, and if we follow it going forward... Awesome. I just don't see that happening.


----------



## mariomike (31 Jan 2017)

White House links Quebec mosque shooting to Trump's travel ban
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec++%22white+House%22&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F30%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F30%2F2017&tbm=#cr=countryCA&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:1%2F30%2F2017%2Ccd_max:1%2F30%2F2017%2Cctr:countryCA&q=Quebec++%22White+House%22




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is also interesting to see how quickly the words "terrorist act" came off the tongues of some political and MSM personalities.





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I don't know -- what's wrong with using the word "terrorist" here?


----------



## brihard (31 Jan 2017)

I see no reason to believe this does not fit the definition of terrorism as defined in the Criminal Code. The elements all seem to be there. But hell, what do I know?


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jan 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I see no reason to believe this does not fit the definition of terrorism as defined in the Criminal Code. The elements all seem to be there. But hell, what do I know?



In the end, punitive wise, is there really any difference between a 'hate crime' and a terrorist act? 

I think they both have the same maximums in the punishment. Terrorism to me feels more as a political word, technically all terrorist acts are hate crimes.


----------



## brihard (31 Jan 2017)

There's not much case law on either. I'm not informed enough to say. The criminal code definition of terrorism has legal consequence in a number of other niches of criminal law. In an open and shut case of mass murder I don't know if it will be of any legal significance- but if it applies, it is important to apply it in order to build up that jurisprudence. This POS decided to wipe out a bunch of Muslims, and evidence seems to suggest that he had some xenophobic far right views that I suspect will surprise nobody who pays any attention to Quebec. It appears to have been politically motivated violence, ergo terrorism. It just doesn't play as well because a whole lot of cranky white dudes are used to only applying that to Muslims and find it suddenly really awkward when they're a degree of separation away from this kind of monster.


----------



## FJAG (31 Jan 2017)

> 2. ...
> 
> terrorism offence means
> 
> ...



ss 83.01 on can be found starting here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-12.html#h-25 but a key element of the definition of terrorist activity is at 83.01(1)(b) which reads: 



> terrorist activity means ...
> 
> (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
> (i) that is committed
> ...



 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Jan 2017)

Sure seems to fit the bill of what is terrorist activity on multiple counts.

 :goodpost:


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Jan 2017)

I know it was cited before that the suspect used a AK47 styled rifle. 

Any clear news on if he was a legal firearm owner and what used ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2017)

And so it begins ... (source)  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Source for second attachment.

 :facepalm:


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jan 2017)

:-[

Sad, but not surprised. There are always nut jobs who when its clear an extreme example of their political stripe is caught. Will cry conspiracy.


----------



## Lightguns (31 Jan 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I know it was cited before that the suspect used a AK47 styled rifle.
> 
> Any clear news on if he was a legal firearm owner and what used ?



Journale de Montreal had a single sentence that said he was a hunter and a gun owner but there was nothing on his facebook, no gun pics, no hunting pics not even a hunting camp pic.  We will have to wait for more info on that.  It's immaterial though, Quebec has the most draconian gun laws in Canada and it changed nothing.


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Jan 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Journale de Montreal had a single sentence that said he was a hunter and a gun owner but there was nothing on his facebook, no gun pics, no hunting pics not even a hunting camp pic.  We will have to wait for more info on that.  It's immaterial though, Quebec has the most draconian gun laws in Canada and it changed nothing.



Agreed.  Just starting to wonder about ramification for legal and law abiding firearms owners. 

Stay off CGN if you can, pretty toxic environment right now.


----------



## SupersonicMax (31 Jan 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> It's immaterial though, Quebec has the most draconian gun laws in Canada and it changed nothing.



How are Quebec gun laws different than the rest of Canada's?

There were 9 mass shootings in Canada since 2000, resulting in 46 deaths.

In comparison, there were around 330 in 2015 alone in the US. 

If guns are difficult to get, it will have a dissuasive effect those prone to commiting a crime.  It will never stop violent crime entirely; there will always be people going the extra mile to get the weapons and shoot people.  But it will, imo, certainly reduce the likelihood of occurrence.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jan 2017)

I know that the powers that be have called this act terrorism from the start, and that some in this forum seem to agree after just looking at the definition that FJAG provided. But terrorism, like hate crimes, require a proof of intent that is based upon what goes on inside one's mind. Not always an easy proof. And in fact, one of the biggest problem with terrorism charges is proving that one was trying to further it's  "political, religious" or whatever else's agenda that would be at the source of his action, through terror. Hate crimes are easier because as long as you prove that it is done against a identifiable group on purpose, no "agenda" furthering is required at the base of the action. Then, finally (and this is what the alleged perp is currently charged with), ordinary first degree murder and attempted murder charges are always available. Much easier, no intent other than the intent to kill and pre-planning for it is required.

Let me try to illustrate: A Canadian of the Jewish faith walks into an Evangelical temple and shoots 10 people. Terrorism? Hate crime? Mass murder?

Scenario one: Israel was invaded by a large group of Evangelical christian "liberating" the Holy Lands , Israel population is kept in tight control and the western nations have all refused to help the legitimate government of Israel. Jewish organizations worldwide have promised to bring the fight to the west until they free Israel. Is this now a terrorist act? Maybe, but if the shooter left documents or at the time of his arrest claimed to act on behalf of a free Israel, then you could certainly come to that conclusion. Without such clear statement, it could still be a hate crime.

Scenario two: The shooter fell in love with a girl who is Evangelical Christian but the day before, she had to break up because of her father's absolute edict that she could not date "out of group". The father who did this was at the temple at the time of the shooting. What have we got in this case? I would say just a mass murder.

In the present case, we have, at this time, no specific facts indicating (even if the shooter was known to be inclined towards extreme right groups) that this act was carried out for the purpose of furthering a specific agenda. We have elements that would tend to put into the hate crime category, but even that could be wrong (think of my scenario 2 - and I am not saying it was love, but there may be facts we don't know that would have caused the shooter to wish harm on that place for reasons other than terrorism or hate against an identifiable group). We do have good evidence that he was the shooter in this mass murder, and that is what he has been charged with so far.

I am sure the police is working on investigating the intent of this shooter, and that if it is warranted, he will be further charged with terrorism or hate crime, as the case may be. But in the meantime, while we are all permitted to speculate, we don't have any publicly available evidence to make a definite call one way or the other.

P.S.: I still think the guy should fry, if we still could. Nevertheless, he'll probably not see freedom again until he is so old and sick that it is just mercy to let him go and die in hospital rather than prison.


----------



## Lightguns (31 Jan 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How are Quebec gun laws different than the rest of Canada's?



- Registry Data is still in use and a new registry is in process.
- Quebec persecutes all statutory firearms offences as criminal offences, no other province or territory does that.
- All Public workers, teachers, gun club members and Medical professionals are required by law (Bill 9) to report to the nearest police any suspicious behavior of anyone known to own a firearm.  Failure to report is a criminal offence.  There is no right of patient-doctor confidentiality if you have a PAL.
- Possession of firearms and ammunition is banned from all public spaces, parks, daycares, schools, government buildings and their parking areas, even if cased and disassembled in an RV or Vehicle. If caught, it is a criminal offence.
- The new registry is tied to your hunting license, so you need to prove you have a registered firearm to get a hunting license.  
- If you own a large number of Prohibs or restricteds, you are twice as likely to be inspected in Quebec as the ROC.  Some larger urban gun owners have reported being inspected yearly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How are Quebec gun laws different than the rest of Canada's?
> 
> There were 9 mass shootings in Canada since 2000, resulting in 46 deaths.
> 
> ...



300millon+ guns in the US and somewhere between 17-30 million in Canada (no one knows for sure) and a ammunition consumption for civilian/police of around 10 billion rds a year. If guns were the driver we all be dead, in fact as ownership goes up , homicides have been going down, except for now Chicago which is bucking a decades old trend of decline. It really always comes back to social issues and even if you can fix that, there will be the occasional rare nutjob that could not be predicted.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Jan 2017)

Terrorism, as understood in the literature of conflict studies, has five components.  First, it is an act of violence; protesting or vandalism is not terrorism.  Second, it is politically motivated; indiscriminate gang violence over turf is not terrorism.  Third it is perpetrated against a general civilian target; targeting and killing six rival gang members is not terrorism.  Fourth, it is for a public audience; stealthy poisoning a political adversary is not terrorism.  Finally, it is perpetrated to inspire a general mood of fear amongst civilian populations.

Dylann Roof was, by definition, a domestic terrorist and was cut from the same cloth as Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik.  I suspect, but facts will need to demonstrate, that Alexandre Bissonette will be the same brand of terrorist.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2017)

Although I _may_ be called offside because I've participated in the debate here, just a friendly reminder:  let's try to keep this thread tracking the crime itself, as opposed to discussing gun control in a ton of detail.  There's already a thread for that, and methinks this could get heated up enough as is    Thanks for your help on this!

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jan 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Terrorism, as understood in the literature of conflict studies, has five components.  First, it is an act of violence; protesting or vandalism is not terrorism.  Second, it is politically motivated; indiscriminate gang violence over turf is not terrorism.  Third it is perpetrated against a general civilian target; targeting and killing six rival gang members is not terrorism.  Fourth, it is for a public audience; stealthy poisoning a political adversary is not terrorism.  Finally, it is perpetrated to inspire a general mood of fear amongst civilian populations.
> 
> Dylann Roof was, by definition, a domestic terrorist and was cut from the same cloth as Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik.  I suspect, but facts will need to demonstrate, that Alexandre Bissonette will be the same brand of terrorist.



Interestingly, Infanteer, even though Dylan Roof specifically confessed to the fact that he wished, by his action, to trigger a race war in the USA, he has been prosecuted (yes Lightguns, the proper term is PROsecuted, not PERsecuted  ;D) for hate crime, not terrorism. And this is the USA where they brandy "terrorism" about pretty easily.

In the present case, there is no indication that, even though Bissonette called the police to himself on purpose, he made any statement of a "political" nature. Personally, I think in the end it will be most likely found to be a hate crime: He just acted out his own warped hatred of people different than himself. Anyone found it funny that he called the police to himself but made no such political comment if  "terrorism" was his aim?

Personally, I think that he expected to die as a result of his action, but the police didn't get there fast enough. He allegedly had time to shoot, exit to reload then go back in for second round and exit again to leave the place without the police getting there. I suspect that some of it has to do with delay in calling the police because it was so unexpected in a dorm town like the Ste-Foy suburb of Quebec City. In the US, everyone would immediately recognize shooting and cops would arrive very quickly. In Quebec City's suburb, most people's reaction was probably "What the hell is that noise?" and when called, the cops had to drive from reasonably far out (even though, in my days, the Ste-Foy cop shop was just down the road about 750 meters away. Don't know about what happened after the city mergers). I think this guy just acted on his hatred as a last act before suicide by police. When it didn't happen, he wanted to find a spot out of the way (near the Orleans Island bridge) to commit suicide but didn't have the guts to go through, so called the police in.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Infanteer, even though Dylan Roof specifically confessed to the fact that he wished, by his action, to trigger a race war in the USA, he has been prosecuted (yes Lightguns, the proper term is PROsecuted, not PERsecuted  ;D) for hate crime, not terrorism. And this is the USA where they brandy "terrorism" about pretty easily.
> 
> In the present case, there is no indication that, even though Bissonette called the police to himself on purpose, he made any statement of a "political" nature. Personally, I think in the end it will be most likely found to be a hate crime: He just acted out his own warped hatred of people different than himself. Anyone found it funny that he called the police to himself but made no such political comment if  "terrorism" was his aim?



These are two different things.  Terrorism is a type of violent act, whereas "hate crime" is an ethnic/religious/racial motive to a criminal action.  Some terrorism is motivated by ethnic/religious/racial hate, while some is not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2017)

[quote author=SupersonicMax] 

If guns are difficult to get, it will have a dissuasive effect those prone to commiting a crime.  
[/quote]

Adversely someone not able to find a gun can switch to something  more deadly like a truck. 

*1*  truck in France killed almost twice as many victims as mass shooting did in Canada over 17 years.


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jan 2017)

Terrorism or not, one thing we can agree with. This guy is going away for a long time, He'll never be released until he is a corpse.


----------



## Lightguns (31 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Infanteer, even though Dylan Roof specifically confessed to the fact that he wished, by his action, to trigger a race war in the USA, he has been prosecuted (yes Lightguns, the proper term is PROsecuted, not PERsecuted  ;D) for hate crime, not terrorism. And this is the USA where they brandy "terrorism" about pretty easily.
> 
> In the present case, there is no indication that, even though Bissonette called the police to himself on purpose, he made any statement of a "political" nature. Personally, I think in the end it will be most likely found to be a hate crime: He just acted out his own warped hatred of people different than himself. Anyone found it funny that he called the police to himself but made no such political comment if  "terrorism" was his aim?
> 
> Personally, I think that he expected to die as a result of his action, but the police didn't get there fast enough. He allegedly had time to shoot, exit to reload then go back in for second round and exit again to leave the place without the police getting there. I suspect that some of it has to do with delay in calling the police because it was so unexpected in a dorm town like the Ste-Foy suburb of Quebec City. In the US, everyone would immediately recognize shooting and cops would arrive very quickly. In Quebec City's suburb, most people's reaction was probably "What the hell is that noise?" and when called, the cops had to drive from reasonably far out (even though, in my days, the Ste-Foy cop shop was just down the road about 750 meters away. Don't know about what happened after the city mergers). I think this guy just acted on his hatred as a last act before suicide by police. When it didn't happen, he wanted to find a spot out of the way (near the Orleans Island bridge) to commit suicide but didn't have the guts to go through, so called the police in.



I intended the word I used.

I tend to agree with you but with one proviso; he realized on his second entry that this wasn't a video game and loss his hate rather fast and ran away.  I think he is just a man-child without even the courage of his warped convictions.  Hate can make you do insane things, witnessing those insane things can quickly dissipate the hate.

I am glad I choose to live in the woods with my animals and wife.


----------



## mariomike (31 Jan 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Hate can make you do insane things, witnessing those insane things can quickly dissipate the hate.



I'm not a criminal defence attorney, but I wonder if his will cop a Twinkie defence  insanity defence mental disorder defense?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> < snip > it was so unexpected in a dorm town like the Ste-Foy suburb of Quebec City.



I read that, "A total of nineteen people were injured in the attack". "six people were killed and eight were wounded in the shooting"

It must have put a strain on local paramedics.

We had 21 people shot on Danzig. That's in Scarborough where shootings are not so unexpected. 
Even with a much higher car count available, that was enough for the City of Toronto to declare a State of Emergency.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2017)

I note one of the victims was a prof from his school so the motives might be mixed and perhaps personal. I would call this a reprehensible Hate Crime and not terrorism. I suspect the government is not letting an opportunity to "frame the discussion" get away from them, hence their quickness to latch onto the word. But of course I am a cynical old fart.


----------



## Loachman (31 Jan 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If guns are difficult to get, it will have a dissuasive effect those prone to commiting a crime.  It will never stop violent crime entirely; there will always be people going the extra mile to get the weapons and shoot people.  But it will, imo, certainly reduce the likelihood of occurrence.



There is a big difference between "difficult to get" and "difficult to get legally". Firearms are always easier to get illegally rather than legally, here and in the US.

Inability to obtain firearms will not deter someone bent on killing. See Nice (truck), Air India (bomb), World Trade Centre 2001 (knives and airliners), Blue Bird Cafe in Montreal (gasoline and matches), a nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway, the  Alfred P Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City (fertilizer bomb), and some mass slashings with swords and knives in Japan and China.


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jan 2017)

I personally feel this fits more a hate crime than a terrorist act. 

I don't know all the details, and I'm sure nobody here does either. But he attacked one ethnic group, he discriminated against one race/religion, But I do agree it may be politically motivated. There is a lot of backlash to the Syrian Immigrant in Canada. You don't have to go far to see it,  it could be he took a perverted view of that and made it into this. Which is much different than saying I don't like immigrants. 

I always felt Terrorist acts are indiscriminate in who they kill, they just want to kill as many as possible. They would care more about a person being a Canadian, than being a Muslim, or Jew, or Christian. 

I'm sure it'll come out in time. But my gut feeling this is classic Racism.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jan 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I note one of the victims was a prof from his school so the motives might be mixed and perhaps personal. I would call this a reprehensible Hate Crime and not terrorism. I suspect the government is not letting an opportunity to "frame the discussion" get away from them, hence their quickness to latch onto the word. But of course I am a cynical old fart.



No. You are just grasping at straw. There is a big difference between a school and a university.

The professor is a Laval University Agriculture department professor. The alleged perpetrator was in the Social Sciences department. There are about 60,000 students at Laval University, with a campus about two and a half square kilometres filled with about 30 different pavilions. There is about 800 meters between the Social Sciences pavilion and the Agriculture one, and in Quebec's francophone universities, there are no such things as requirement for a certain number of "electives" out of department. The chances that he knew that prof., while not nil, are pretty remote.


----------



## quadrapiper (31 Jan 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I note one of the victims was a prof from his school so the motives might be mixed and perhaps personal. I would call this a reprehensible Hate Crime and not terrorism. I suspect the government is not letting an opportunity to "frame the discussion" get away from them, hence their quickness to latch onto the word. But of course I am a cynical old fart.


With the initial reports of two shooters, labeling it terrorism at the outset makes a certain degree of non-"framing" sense.


----------



## gryphonv (31 Jan 2017)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> With the initial reports of two shooters, labeling it terrorism at the outset makes a certain degree of non-"framing" sense.



Terrorism though is also a very powerful word today, it draws eyes. Racism not so much. Seeing someone called a racist, people envision groups or person that are usually very localized, small with a lack of any real power. Calling people a terrorist, people envision hordes of religious fanatics with far international reach, sleeper cells, planning wars and all sorts of things.

This guy seems like a recluse who acted alone, no instruction, just a hate of the world, and certain groups.


----------



## mariomike (31 Jan 2017)

FOX NEWS
"Suspect in Quebec mosque terror attack was of Moroccan origin"
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/826120752529301504
Posted:  9:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017
Fox News FINALLY took it down at 1923 Hrs. EST- 31 Jan 2017. 

Trudeau’s PMO takes on Fox News over a ‘false and misleading’ tweet about the Quebec mosque shooting
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeaus-pmo-takes-on-fox-news-over-a-fox-tweet-about-the-mosque-shooting
“These tweets by Fox News dishonour the memory of the six victims and their families by spreading misinformation, playing identity politics, and perpetuating fear and division within our communities,” 

See also,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trudeau+%22fox+news%22&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F31%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F31%2F2017&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:1%2F31%2F2017%2Ccd_max:1%2F31%2F2017&q=trudeau+%22fox+news%22+%22Moroccan+origin%22


----------



## Scott (31 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Terrorism though is also a very powerful word today, it draws eyes. Racism not so much. Seeing someone called a racist, people envision groups or person that are usually very localized, small with a lack of any real power. Calling people a terrorist, people envision hordes of religious fanatics with far international reach, sleeper cells, planning wars and all sorts of things.
> 
> This guy seems like a recluse who acted alone, no instruction, just a hate of the world, and certain groups.



You're awfully concerned with flags and words.

Edit: typo


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Jan 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I personally feel this fits more a hate crime than a terrorist act.
> 
> I always felt Terrorist acts are indiscriminate in who they kill, they just want to kill as many as possible. They would care more about a person being a Canadian, than being a Muslim, or Jew, or Christian.
> 
> I'm sure it'll come out in time. But my gut feeling this is classic Racism.



Yes, terrorist attacks, are random, and they are designed to cause mass casualties, but they fit into the overall terrorist strategy, which to paraphrase what Infanteer posted earlier is "*The illegal use of violence against innocent people, to gain media attention and achieve political change*." 

For exampkle, the 2004 Madrid Train bombings.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jan 2017)

This monster didn't want to effect change or influence opinion.  He just wanted to kill people he didn't like.


----------



## brihard (1 Feb 2017)

Terrorism and hate crimes are not mutually exclusive. Mass violence may be one or the other or neither or both. I suspect this will be both.

I also suspect that between the arrest and his appearance in court, this pathetic little man-baby probably spilled his guts in an interrogation. I have absolutely nothing to go on in saying that, it's just a gut feel. He was a coward.

My bet right now? We'll see the whole story come out in an agreed statement of facts as part of a guilty plea. Politics will be a part of his motivation, along with a more base racism. He will not mount a successful insanity defense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2017)

Some of the latest via CBC.ca ...


> A shy chess-player, a bullied introvert, a moderate conservative turned far-right troll — these are the descriptions being offered of Alexandre Bissonnette since he was accused of perpetrating a deadly shooting at a Quebec City mosque.
> 
> Bissonnette looked nervous during his brief court appearance on Monday. He didn't say a word and shuffled in his handcuffs; before being escorted out, he was charged with 11 counts of murder and attempted murder.
> 
> ...


... The Canadian Press ...


> Along the sleepy suburban street where the man charged in the Quebec City mosque shooting was raised, neighbours say as a kid he played baseball, swam in backyard pools and explored the nearby forest like many local boys.
> 
> Alexandre Bissonnette also developed a passion for guns as far back as his pre-teens, recalled one man who has lived across from the 27-year-old suspect’s childhood home for about three decades.
> 
> ...


... and globalnews.ca:


> Two people remain in critical condition in a Quebec City hospital following the horrific attack on a mosque Sunday during evening prayers that left six men dead and 19 others injured.
> 
> Speaking with reporters Tuesday morning, hospital officials said two people remain in critical condition with abdominal injuries. As of late Monday, five people were still in hospital.
> 
> Officials said Tuesday one victim was released from l’Hôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus and another two individuals were still recovering in stable condition. Each victim suffered from three to six bullet wounds, a hospital official said. Doctors expect the two victims in critical condition will recover from their injuries ...



Meanwhile, _*"Fox News apologizes for erroneous Quebec terror tweet"*_.  Let's see if that slows down the "False Flag Machine" on social media -- <sarcasm>yeah, I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it'll close the door on that angle </sarcasm>.

And here's Rebel Media's take ...


> ... Twelve hours after the attack, the official media narrative involved not one but two suspects who allegedly yelled, “Allahu Akbar!” while carrying out their murderous rampage.
> 
> Witnesses were interviewed across various media outlets. Witnesses who claimed to have been inside the mosque at the time of the attack. All alleged the same: Two assailants stormed in, opening fire while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!" As of Monday morning Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC, conducted television interviews with witnessed who, again, corroborated the story.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Feb 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> There is a lot of backlash to the Syrian Immigrant in Canada. You don't have to go far to see it...



I guess that depends on where you look and what part of Canada you call home...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-syrian-refugees-lena-diab-mike-savage-any-filmore-1.3539341

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/peace-by-chocolate-hadhads-celebrate-year-one-in-antigonish-1.3925779

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrian-newcomers-agriculture-jobs-cumberland-county-1.3955400


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Although I _may_ be called offside because I've participated in the debate here, just a friendly reminder:  let's try to keep this thread tracking the crime itself, as opposed to discussing gun control in a ton of detail.  There's already a thread for that, and methinks this could get heated up enough as is    Thanks for your help on this!
> 
> *Milnet.ca Staff*



100% agreed.  I will move over to the thread you speak of


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 100% agreed.  I will move over to the thread you speak of


Not a huge dig, but there's more than enough on BOTH topics to keep threads healthily fed without force-feeding one or the other - thanks!


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> ... There is a lot of backlash to the Syrian Immigrant in Canada. You don't have to go far to see it *on social media* ...


FTFY


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not a huge dig, but there's more than enough on BOTH topics to keep threads healthily fed without force-feeding one or the other - thanks!



No worries at all.


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> He will not mount a successful insanity defense.



Not necessarily successful, but under the circumstances, what other defence could his lawyer(s) attempt?



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, _*"Fox News apologizes for erroneous Quebec terror tweet"*_.  Let's see if that slows down the "False Flag Machine" on social media -- <sarcasm>yeah, I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it'll close the door on that angle </sarcasm>.



   :goodpost:


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Feb 2017)

> Trudeau’s PMO takes on Fox News over a ‘false and misleading’ tweet about the Quebec mosque shooting



Trudeau, 'false and misleading’ ?  Funny headline.


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Trudeau, 'false and misleading’ ?  Funny headline.



What did the Prime Minister say or do that was 'false and misleading’ regarding: "29 Jan 2017: Multiple dead after shooting at Quebec City mosque"?


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Feb 2017)

Nothing.

IMHO 





> Trudeau, 'false and misleading’ ?  Funny headline.


 based on his election campaign and results of his government to date, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Nothing.
> 
> IMHO  based on his election campaign and results of his government to date, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones



I'm not defending his politics, one way or the other. I'd be more likely to vote for "American Idol" or "The Voice" than our federal elections.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Feb 2017)

I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections. You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Trudeau, 'false and misleading’ ?  Funny headline.


Uh, I think that's referring to one of the early FOX News initial Twitter posts/headines being false/misleading (which, to be fair to FOX, has been corrected, and was the same as a LOT of MSM outlets were going with until replacing it with more current info).


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections. You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.


It's called "having a different opinion" - whether someone votes or not.

Meanwhile, a bit more on the "terrorism" labeling thing ...


> Within 24 hours of Sunday’s shooting in a Quebec City mosque, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette stood in a prisoner’s box as the 11 charges against him were read aloud.
> 
> By then, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had already condemned the killing of six worshippers as a terrorism attack. Other political leaders, federal and provincial, also called it an act of terror.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections.



Rifleman62. Sorry for not replying to you sooner, we had to go shopping.

It's not that I refuse to vote, I just don't follow party politics much. But, I love living in Canada - more so now than ever.  
Municipal politics still gets the focus of my attention.

In my 8+ years here,- whichever party gets in - I have never disrespected the Prime Minister of Canada, or Premier of Ontario.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.



They put him in Radio Chatter. So, I go by this ROE,



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I know I've been gently poked for not having a sense of humour when it comes to some of the digs going on.  To pass along some sage advice, _"we have to remember to check if we are in RADIO CHATTER before we want to "seriously" comment on a less than "serious" thread"_



No politicians get a Safe Space in Radio Chatter!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. You are just grasping at straw. There is a big difference between a school and a university.
> 
> The professor is a Laval University Agriculture department professor. The alleged perpetrator was in the Social Sciences department. There are about 60,000 students at Laval University, with a campus about two and a half square kilometres filled with about 30 different pavilions. There is about 800 meters between the Social Sciences pavilion and the Agriculture one, and in Quebec's francophone universities, there are no such things as requirement for a certain number of "electives" out of department. The chances that he knew that prof., while not nil, are pretty remote.



Point taken, I only noted it from the media coverage as possibility. One thing to keep in mind is that while these people were innocent and undeserving of this attack, Islam in itself is not innocent and is also been a motivator for similar attacks on non-muslims. My sympathy will be for the people and families hurt, ruined and destroyed by these actions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2017)

A bit of an update ...


> The Quebec City mosque that was the target of a mass shooting last January will boost security after a flux of “hateful messages.” And while they report receiving one or two pieces of hate mail per week, one of the most aggressive ones arrived last week.
> 
> The Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec received a package on Friday containing a defaced Quran and a note suggesting the community use a hog farm as a cemetery.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2017)

The latest ...


> Alexandre Bissonnette, accused of killing six Muslim men at a Quebec City mosque in January, is back in court under tight security.
> 
> Additional evidence was given to defence lawyers at the Quebec City courthouse, including information from computers, said one of the Crown prosecutors, Thomas Jacques. But the disclosure of the evidence is not completed.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2017)

The latest:  straight to judge + jury trial with no preliminary inqury - back in court 6 Dec to (maybe) set a trial date.

Also, no terrorism charges reportedly being laid (links to article in French):  at this point, 6 x counts first-degree murder,  and 5 x attempted murder using a restricted firearm and 1 x attempted murder.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Oct 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest:  straight to judge + jury trial with no preliminary inqury - back in court 6 Dec to (maybe) set a trial date.
> 
> Also, no terrorism charges reportedly being laid (links to article in French):  at this point, 6 x counts first-degree murder,  and 5 x attempted murder using a restricted firearm and 1 x attempted murder.



it's sad to see that no terrorism charges were laid, as this is a clear terrorist attack. The less cynical side of me wants to believe that if the case was reversed, ie- a muslim man shot and killed 6 Christians in a church, that the outcome would be the same. I, however, live in a more cynical world where I don't believe that is the case. Same as the Las Vegas shooter coverage has suddenly become less a "terrorist" attack and more of a "mass shooting". Trumps refusal to use "terrorist" is another indicator.


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2017)

I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter.

Until such time as a motivation has been determined for the Las Vegas a-hole's crime, terming it as "terrorism" would be completely inappropriate and quite likely wrong.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> it's sad to see that no terrorism charges were laid, as this is a clear terrorist attack ...





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter ...


I'm with you both on this, but it isn't as simple or easy as it seems ...


> *Quebec City and Edmonton attacks: Why it's difficult to lay terrorism charges in Canada*
> Sean Fine, Globe & Mail, 4 Oct 2017
> 
> The attacks had all the hallmarks of terrorism. In Quebec City, a man is accused of fatally shooting six worshippers at a mosque, and attempting to kill others. In Edmonton, a man is accused of driving a van into pedestrians and stabbing a police officer. Yet neither has been charged with committing an act of terrorism.
> ...


On the other hand, if charges are easier to prove and the sentencing is more severe under non-terrorism charges, I'd be comfortable with doing more time without fitting the pigeonhole of "terrorism".  Those that believe it is will call it that regardless of legal definitions, and people who don't think so never will.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2017)

Similar problems with "hate" crimes.  The discernment of what is in the culprit's head remains as inexact a science as when entrails were being examined for clues.

It is hard enough to distinguish between manslaughter and murder.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter.
> 
> Until such time as a motivation has been determined for the Las Vegas a-hole's crime, terming it as "terrorism" would be completely inappropriate and quite likely wrong.



I agree that the shooter in Las Vegas cannot be called a "terrorist" until it is known if he did his act for political purposes, so backtrack on that point. However, in terms of "quite likely wrong" I'm not so sure. This was pre-meditated and well planned out. Even the waiting for the last act of the last day, from the outside, could indicate that the shooter had some hesitation about what he was going to do. It will be interesting to see what the motive was. But that's for another thread


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2018)

Update

QUOTE

April 18, 2018

TORONTO — The 28-year-old man who attacked a mosque in a Quebec City suburb in January 2017 spent hours in front of his computer screen reading about mass shooters and scouring the Twitter accounts of right-wing commentators, alt-right figures, conspiracy theorists and President Trump, according to evidence presented at his sentencing hearing this week.

On Monday, prosecutors revealed a 45-page document itemizing the contents of a computer belonging to the shooter,

Parts of the document, according to the Montreal Gazette, show that Bissonnette — who has appeared in a selfie sporting a red Make America Great Again cap — searched for President Trump a total of 819 times across Twitter, Google, YouTube and Facebook. Bissonnette paid particular attention to the president’s Twitter feed, which he searched for 417 times.

Bissonnette also appears to have obsessively visited the Twitter accounts of Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, Fox News personalities; David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan; Alex Jones of Infowars; conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich; Richard Spencer, the white nationalist; and senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. Bissonnette checked in on the Twitter account of Ben Shapiro, editor in chief of the conservative news site the Daily Wire, 93 times in the month leading up to the shooting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/?noredirect=on

END QUOTE


----------



## kratz (26 Apr 2019)

CTV.ca

The choice to not charge this individual with terrorism is now catching up with the government.



> Alexandre Bissonnette's parents ask Prime Minister to stop calling their son a terrorist
> 
> The father of Alexandre Bissonnette, the man who committed mass murder at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre two years ago, has asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stop referring to his son as a terrorist.
> 
> ...



More at link.


----------



## brihard (26 Apr 2019)

I wouldn’t say so. Dude’s dad is angry. So what? They raised a monster; too bad.

He wasn’t charged with terrorism offenses because it would have needlessly complicated a very straightforward prosecution for multiple counts of murder. Terrorism offenses are most useful where there are not other more serious substantive offenses to prosecute, e.g. we can prove some dude provided material support to a terrorist organization or travelled to work for one but we cannot pin a murder or an attack to him.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2019)

Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.

It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.


----------



## brihard (26 Apr 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.
> 
> It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.



Yup, but there’s additional considerations when pursuing terrorism related criminal charges. Given the strength of the very clear cut multiple murder charges, to lay additional charges of terrorism offenses would have needlessly complicated and lengthened prosecution with no real additional benefit to the public interest.


----------



## Haggis (27 Apr 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.
> 
> It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.



I see no political element in this at all.  I see an act of religious and cultural hatred carried out by a criminal to sow fear in a segment of the public.  Is that terrorism?  Yes, according to the Criminal Code. (S 83.01(b)(i) and (ii)(A)).  Does one have to be convicted of terrorism to be a terrorist?  No.

In my mind, their son is a terrorist, pure and simple.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2019)

Cultural friction (culture includes religion) is a political element.  I see a political element; so, yeah, I think he's a terrorist.  But my rule of thumb is only that, and subject to exceptions.  If the point of something is to induce action by fear/terrorism rather than to obtain some sort of mundane personal gratification or gain, then it's terrorism.  It's just that I find very little of the action terrorists try to induce is really apolitical.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Apr 2019)

The general working definition of terrorism that I've seen over the last 20 years of observing is:

1.  Violent act (so, graffiti isn't terrorism)
2.  Perpetrated against civilians (attacking armed combatants isn't terrorism)
3.  By non-government actors (states don't conduct terrorism)
4.  For a political purpose (bikers using a car bomb on a rival gang isn't terrorism)
5.  In a public setting to induce fear (clandestine assassinations aren't terrorism)


----------



## brihard (27 Apr 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The general working definition of terrorism that I've seen over the last 20 years of observing is:
> 
> 1.  Violent act (so, graffiti isn't terrorism)
> 2.  Perpetrated against civilians (attacking armed combatants isn't terrorism)
> ...



Just being nit-picky, I assume ‘against civilians’ would include economic/critical infrastructure targets even in the absence of harm to people, so long as it’s still done in order to pressure-through-violence? Destroying or disrupting the right ‘thing’ or process or system or event can be as frightening and disruptive (or moreso) than attacking people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2019)

I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Apr 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'



I would also mention that Pol Pot and his followers conducted an ongoing terror campaign against their own people.


----------



## FJAG (27 Apr 2019)

When you discuss terrorism you can look at numerous definitions but in my mind the two relevant ones are the general one:



> Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

and the one specific to Canadian Law from s 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code which defines a "Terrorist activity" as:



> terrorist activity means
> 
> (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
> 
> ...



 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Apr 2019)

How would this hold up in Canadian court as a libel or slander suit?


----------



## FJAG (28 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How would this hold up in Canadian court as a libel or slander suit?



I don't have enough evidence to say definitively but based on the generalities of the case I would think that six reasonably instructed jurors looking at the circumstances of the act itself and at the background material on his computer would conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that this was most likely a terrorist act. As a result a defamation case would almost certainly fail.

 :cheers:


----------



## Infanteer (28 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Just being nit-picky, I assume ‘against civilians’ would include economic/critical infrastructure targets even in the absence of harm to people, so long as it’s still done in order to pressure-through-violence? Destroying or disrupting the right ‘thing’ or process or system or event can be as frightening and disruptive (or moreso) than attacking people.



Not sure - if a guy blows up an oil pipeline, is he an eco-terrorist, or just a saboteur?  Can sabotage be a subset of terrorism, or are human lives an essential part of the equation?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'



I used to think this, but was convinced that it opened the aperture up too wide, limiting the utility of the term terrorism, hence why I added "by a non-state actor" to the qualifiers.  Was the Combined Bomber Offensive a campaign of terrorism?  It certainly fit the rubric (less non-state actor).

States can sponsor terrorism, but if state actors are conducting violence against the civilians of other states, it is generally an act of war.  States conducting violence against there own civilians are simply exercising their monopoly on the use of force - it may be disproportionate and indiscriminate, but it is still an exercise of the monopoly none-the-less.

NB.  The literature acknowledges that the definition of terrorism is loose - I only adopted the one I posted above as it seems to be the easiest to apply without running into the "what about this."


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2019)

The latest, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of Canada's _Copyright Act_ ...


> A group of lawyers opposed to consecutive life sentences has been granted intervener status in an appeal of the sentence handed down to Quebec City mosque killer Alexandre Bissonnette.
> 
> The Montreal Defence Lawyers Association is arguing that the Criminal Code contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing judges to stack life sentences for multiple murders instead imposing them concurrently.
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (28 Oct 2019)

Some lawyers seem to have nothing better to do. Some criminals deserve to go away for ever.

 :clubinhand:


----------



## dapaterson (28 Oct 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Some lawyers seem to have nothing better to do. Some criminals deserve to go away for ever.
> 
> :clubinhand:



Do we have a penal system or a correctional system?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do we have a penal system or a correctional system?


Yes.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 May 2022)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847
		


Consecutive sentences are out. Another great example of how the rights of a murderer is more important than the rights of the murdered.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847
> 
> 
> 
> Consecutive sentences are out. Another great example of how the rights of a murderer is more important than the rights of the murdered.


I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.  

"Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.
> 
> "Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.


Correct. You can apply for parole at 25 years BUT that is no guarantee you will be paroled.


----------



## Staff Weenie (27 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Correct. You can apply for parole at 25 years BUT that is no guarantee you will be paroled.


My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2022)

Staff Weenie said:


> My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?


I have zero knowledge of the process, but could the board (or whoever gets the application) shut it down before it gets to the point of calling the families?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 May 2022)

Staff Weenie said:


> My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?


From what I have seen it is difficult to have a DO put on someone, apparently the burden of proof is very high.

We had one guy tagged as DO after numerous assaults on police and corrections. Everyone knew he was DO for years except the system.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 May 2022)

This one I don't get, the sentencing guidelines were put in place by Parliament, and after 10 years has very rarely been applied, and seems like the sentencing judge was very deliberate when he looked at that option.

If there is a conflict between the Charter and some laws, do they need to start invoking the notwithstanding clause regularly? Thought it was supposed to be the nuclear option but this is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## lenaitch (27 May 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> This one I don't get, the sentencing guidelines were put in place by Parliament, and after 10 years has very rarely been applied, and seems like the sentencing judge was very deliberate when he looked at that option.
> 
> If there is a conflict between the Charter and some laws, do they need to start invoking the notwithstanding clause regularly? Thought it was supposed to be the nuclear option but this is pretty ridiculous.


All laws have to be Charter-compliant, and the SCOC is the final arbiter of that.  In spite of gaggle of government learned noggins passing opinions on proposed legislation, it is, at best, a very educated, highly paid, best guess on how the courts will rule.

I personally don't like the ruling (I know - that, and $150 buys you a coffee).   I think the Crown has been judicious in its application of this consecutive sentencing provision; reserving it for the most heinous instances.  I could see the Court's position if it had been applied to every multiple homicide, but I think the general consensus, for whatever that is worth, would consider this ruling, not the consecutive sentencing, as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without seeing the actual decision, it's hard to say how the government can respond.  It is not uncommon for judgements to suggest fixes or 'drop hints' to legislators on how to make a law Charter-compliant.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.
> 
> "Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.



Cases like this, I wish we had the death sentence.  Now we have to pay for this POS for 25-life?   I don’t support that.  6 counts of 1st degree;  I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.
> 
> "Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.


Any chance of parole is more than that POS deserves.

I do not give a single f@&$ if he is ‘rehabilitatable’ or not. He murdered 6 people in cold blood for no reason other than their religion. He should be swinging from a tree not relaxing in prison. The fact we should even have to consider the possibility of this scumbag going free is a insult to every single person he murdered.

What is more concerning to me is the Supreme Court essentially making legislation. Who decided anything more than 25 years is cruel? Why can we not remove people who have proven they do not belong in society? We made arguments to violate citizens rights during COVID when they could possibly have a virus, and that was a ‘reasonable restriction’ yet we have a proven multi-murderer who could potentially walk free at some point in his life due to our courts overruling our democratic process?

Maybe its time for parliament to define cruel and unusual punishment through legislation instead of leaving it up the judges digression.


----------



## lenaitch (28 May 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Any chance of parole is more than that POS deserves.
> 
> I do not give a single f@&$ if he is ‘rehabilitatable’ or not. He murdered 6 people in cold blood for no reason other than their religion. He should be swinging from a tree not relaxing in prison. The fact we should even have to consider the possibility of this scumbag going free is a insult to every single person he murdered.
> 
> ...



The SCOC has done no such thing.  It ruled that the legislation violated the legislation that all other legislation has to comply with; the Charter, part of our foundational law.  Unless you believe in the absolute supremacy of Parliament; i.e no court can overrule an Act of Parliament, which is pretty much what they have in the UK,  for now, or rule by despot, some level of the system has the job of interpreting the strings of words that other levels create.  It's far from perfect, but I await an example of the perfect system.

Then again, from other posts, I recall you aren't a big fan of our Constitution anyway.

I'm not a fan of this ruling either, but I'm not a fan of stringing folks up from trees either.


----------



## brihard (29 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Cases like this, I wish we had the death sentence.  Now we have to pay for this POS for 25-life?   I don’t support that.  6 counts of 1st degree;  I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.


Once all the costs are added up, the reath penalty ultimately ends up being quite a bit more expensive than actual life in prison. The multiple reexaminations and appeals necessary to ensure capital punishment is carried out as justly as possible are very expensive to conduct. The cost question has not proven in the US to work out in favour of execution.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2022)

brihard said:


> Once all the costs are added up, the reath penalty ultimately ends up being quite a bit more expensive than actual life in prison. The multiple reexaminations and appeals necessary to ensure capital punishment is carried out as justly as possible are very expensive to conduct. The cost question has not proven in the US to work out in favour of execution.



I am actually surprised to read that.  I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state.  Tks for correcting me.


----------



## brihard (29 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I am actually surprised to read that.  I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state.  Tks for correcting me.


Yeah, I was surprised too. I mean, a system without due process where they pronounce death and quickly get it over with, yeah, obviously cheaper. But when a system includes avenues of appeal that a person chooses to use (generally the case with the death penalty), and in the interim they’re incarcerated for years anyway (and generally in a dedicated ‘death row’ facility), the costs ramp up fast.


----------



## mariomike (29 May 2022)

> I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.



Not likley to be brought back in this country anytime soon, from what I have read.

The last two hangings in Canada were back to back at the Don, almost 60 years ago.

One shot a Metro officer on the Danforth. The other was a double-homicide in the Annex.

One year from the crime to the end of a rope in each case.









						The end of the rope: The story of Canada’s last executions
					

Arthur Lucas and Ronald Turpin were the last men executed in Canada in 1962. Fifty years later, questions remain about their crimes, trials and their shared punishment.




					www.thestar.com


----------



## YZT580 (29 May 2022)

An infamous politician sold the scrapping of the death penalty with the words: Life means life.  No parole for first degree murderers.  So what happened?


----------



## lenaitch (30 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I am actually surprised to read that.  I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state.  Tks for correcting me.


Average time lapse in the US from sentencing to execution is 227 months (~19 years).  Up from 95 months (~8 years) in 1990.









						U.S. capital punishment - average time between sentencing and execution 2020 | Statista
					

In 2020, an average of 227 months elapsed between sentencing and execution for inmates on death row in the United States.




					www.statista.com


----------



## brihard (30 May 2022)

Capital punishment could never survive Charter challenge anyway… It’s a moot point.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> The SCOC has done no such thing.  It ruled that the legislation violated the legislation that all other legislation has to comply with; the Charter, part of our foundational law.  Unless you believe in the absolute supremacy of Parliament; i.e no court can overrule an Act of Parliament, which is pretty much what they have in the UK,  for now, or rule by despot, some level of the system has the job of interpreting the strings of words that other levels create.  It's far from perfect, but I await an example of the perfect system.
> 
> Then again, from other posts, I recall you aren't a big fan of our Constitution anyway.
> 
> I'm not a fan of this ruling either, but I'm not a fan of stringing folks up from trees either.


Technically the Charter is the supremacy of Parliament, just as the Monarchy is as if they wished to remove it they could.

See I disagree with the supreme courts assessment on this. Cruel and unusual punishment is meant to mean no exceptionally harsh (i.e. you steal a pack of gum and we put you to death in response) punishment or no out of place punishment (i.e. if 10 people got a slap on the wrist for the same thing they can’t throw you in jail for life all things being the same). Hell the PM when they wrote this thing stated the intent was to keep people like this in prison for life if we weren't going to put them to death. The only thing that is cruel in this response is the fact that the victims family might have to deal with this guy potentially getting out after murdering 6 of their loved ones.

Last I checked a life is a lot longer than 25 years so why is it life in prison only means 25 years guaranteed? It is reasonable to assign more than that just as it would also be reasonable to completely do away with parole if they so chose. Not everyone deserves to be rehabilitated, sometimes what is best for everyone is to cut our losses.

As to not liking our constitution, there's parts I like and parts I would change. Things like the not-withstanding clause wouldn’t exist in my version, property rights would be added in, the ‘reasonable restriction’ portion would be removed (as its a cop out to invalidate the rights that exist), and native rights would seize to exist (one set of laws for everyone). I would also move more towards a Swiss style of democracy as I see no need in the modern era to maintain this antiquated system when you can see the better system in action. I know that it is unlikely to change, especially the way I would like, but my version would move towards equality and equal defense of rights.


----------



## lenaitch (2 Jun 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Technically the Charter is the supremacy of Parliament, just as the Monarchy is as if they wished to remove it they could.
> 
> See I disagree with the supreme courts assessment on this. Cruel and unusual punishment is meant to mean no exceptionally harsh (i.e. you steal a pack of gum and we put you to death in response) punishment or no out of place punishment (i.e. if 10 people got a slap on the wrist for the same thing they can’t throw you in jail for life all things being the same). Hell the PM when they wrote this thing stated the intent was to keep people like this in prison for life if we weren't going to put them to death. The only thing that is cruel in this response is the fact that the victims family might have to deal with this guy potentially getting out after murdering 6 of their loved ones.
> 
> ...


Agree with most everything you say.

I don't like the decision either.  Constitutions, Charters, foundational law are words 'writ large and broad' by people.  Somebody has to apply them to the day-to-day interaction of humans, and that's the courts.  Not the public mood, or the media or politicians (they're the ones who wrote the law in the first place, so hardly fair). Perhaps another nine and another time might come to a different conclusion.  Whether or not you agree with the US 2nd amendment, some of the SCOTUS decisions on it are some of the most cunning linguistic gymnastics you will likely ever read.

I don't like the 'notwithstanding clause' either, but it does provide a mechanism for legislators to preemptively override the Charter and, by implication, the courts, so there's that.  It was a compromise to get a couple of provinces on-side to the repatriation process.  Interestingly, Quebec wasn't one of them.

I have no problem with Section 1 ('reasonable limitation').  Although I'm not smart enough to compare it to other foundational law in other lands, it does codify - in broad terms - how the Charter should be applied.  Even in the US, which many like to mount as the shining light on the hill, no right is absolute.  At least we have codified the interpretive limitation statement; the US has done it through 'compelling state interest' jurisprudence.


----------



## brihard (2 Jun 2022)

Section 1 is essential for the Charter to make any sense at all. Our system of criminal law would be unworkable without it. There needs to be an ability for the courts to read reasonable limitations into certain rights in certain contexts in order for conflicting societal impacts to be balanced. An absolutist view of freedom of expression, unconstrained by S.1 would, for instance, strip Parliament of the ability to legislate criminal offences for things like uttering threats, advocating genocide, perjury, falsely reporting matters to police, etc.

For a sense of how broadly S.1 applies, look up R. v. Oakes 1986, and how many important decisions have relied on it. Without S.1, a lot of our Charter would handcuff the government from implementing many essential laws.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Jun 2022)

My issue with it is what is reasonable?

For example free speech. I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

I would rather have written into the Charter specific arcs of fire instead of a catch all phrase as you can argue basically anything is reasonable. It is much harder to argue against a specific limitation. It also ensures that the rights are protected as they were written instead of some interpretation that changes as time progresses. 

General broadness is not what I want in terms of how rights can be limited, general broadness is how I prefer rights to be applied with a error on the side of freedom, not restriction.


----------



## brihard (3 Jun 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> My issue with it is what is reasonable?
> 
> For example free speech. I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.
> 
> ...


The test for reasonable limitations has been around in case law for 35 years and is very well fleshed out and established. It’s also quite robust. Again, R. v. Oakes is the key case law there. There’s actually quite a good primer at DoJ’s ‘Charterpedia’ page. Charterpedia - Section 1 – Reasonable limits

Your thoughts of having specific offences written into the Charter in lieu of S.1 is unworkable. The Charter is a constitutional document. It’s supposed to be extremely stable. It IS very difficult to amend. Criminal offences are best established through the normal legislative process, not awkward constitutional carve outs.

Free expression absolutism is all well and good- til you realize that someone could, if they wished, put up a billboard with your face on it saying you’re a child molester, or could call police to say there’s an active shooter in a school, or could confront your wife at the store and promise to rape and murder her. Or, pulling it back to the subject of this thread, could openly advocate that people should go into mosques and shoot them up til all the Muslims are gone. Fortunately, defamatory libel, public mischief, uttering threats, and willful incitement of hatred are all crimes, despite impugning the freedom of expression. The flexibility in the Charter to argue reasonable limitations in a test in court lets us have these very essential laws.


----------



## lenaitch (3 Jun 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> My issue with it is what is reasonable?
> 
> For example free speech. *I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else*.
> 
> ...


You do realize that the statement contradicts itself.  The moment a qualification is added, the concept of 'absolute' is lost.  It then boils down to one's view of where the line is, and that's what laws and the courts do.

It would be interesting to know if any democratic nation's constitution or foundational law describes protected rights in words that capture every single human interaction.  If so, I can't imagine how cumbersome and complex it would be. 

Canadian society has changed immensely since 1982.  I can't imagine how many 'constitution conferences' would have been convened for our laws to reflect those changes.


----------



## Kilted (4 Jun 2022)

Unless there is any actual case law on the subject, I'm pretty sure that s. 7 would allow it:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


----------



## brihard (4 Jun 2022)

Kilted said:


> Unless there is any actual case law on the subject, I'm pretty sure that s. 7 would allow it:
> 
> 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


Without a reference question to the SCC, or an actual case to adjudicate (impossible since we don’t have capital punishment), we cannot know for sure. There is, however, case law that’s not 100% on point but suggests how the court would rule. United States V Burns, 2001 SCC 7 concerned a U.S. request to extradited an American fugitive. The Supreme Court ruled it would be a section 7 violation to extradite without an assurance that he would not be executed.

It’s a lengthy decision, but some considerations include the risk of wrongful conviction and execution, and also specifically looks at how international law is a barometer of concepts of ‘fundamental justice’.

Personally I see almost zero chance that execution could be constitutional in Canada given the Charter.



			https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc7/2001scc7.html


----------

