If you're working with someone you have

Pretty sure Canada generally believes in free speech, religious practice, thought, etc more than this.


After each one of these attacks, I keep hearing how it has nothing to do with Islam so if that is the case, their actions aren't protected under the freedom of religion doctrine. I also believe that free speech has a limit. I don't believe an Imman has the right to incite hatred against citizens and hide behind the freedom of religion protection of the UK or any other country.


If an Imman in Canada is teaching their followers to perform attacks on the Canadian people, to kill innocent people because they believe something different, then I would want our government to arrest them or deport them.


Once again it seems we are so intent on protecting the rights of people intent on killing while ignoring the rights that innocent people have. Something has to change.

You keep talking about deporting people. Many or most of the UK terrorists have been British born, with British passports. Where would you deport them to?

Cancelling passports for people who go to fight for ISIS abroad is something I could get behind.

I'm not sure that cancelling passports is an option. I understand that here they say that under some sort of international convention people cannot be made 'homeless' if they only have a western passport.

JSA - what is the difference between a bank robbery and terrorist attack? By that I mean they often arrest suspects planning a terrorist attack prior to it happening. They don't walk free just because it never actually occurred.

Sanuk - how about adding the hiring of vans to the list of suspect items that requires more stringent identity checks and possibly a one week waiting list with only the person applying being able to collect. Like how buying ammonia etc started raising eyebrows and triggering the attention of authorities..

Do you mean strongly criticizing, or actual terrorist training? You appear to be skating on a hopelessly slippery slope

They were shot within 8 mins. Iniatial damage was with a van from a DIY chain so not sure it was a hire.

They then went on a killing rampage and were shot. One escaped one arrested.

All British press immediately reported it as terror related.

Curious, does the slippery slope fallacy only apply to conservative opinions or can it be equally applied to liberal ones too?

999 to 3 dead in 8 minutes is - i suspect - a pretty good result for those types of operations

It also shows you can do a lot of damage in 8 minutes with 3 nutters with big knives

Sanuk - how about adding the hiring of vans to the list of suspect items that requires more stringent identity checks and possibly a one week waiting list with only the person applying being able to collect. Like how buying ammonia etc started raising eyebrows and triggering the attention of authorities..


The problem is that the use of vans is a recent addition to their arsenal and we seem to be playing whack a mole when it comes to trying to stop them.


The problem is that in many cases, after incidents like this, people come out and talk about seeing a change in the terrorist. They talk about how he started changing his appearance (ie. growing a beard), changing his clothing, showing signs of withdrawing, showing more signs of radicalization. It would be an imperfect science of course but those things could at least alert the police to a potential problem. I see the difficulty but it seems when these things occur, many are not that surprised, except for the police who were watching them.


It's like the bully problem in schools where they ask kids to report the behavior to the schools before the bully acts out. It may not be perfect but at least the Muslim community would show they are involved and trying to stop these type of acts instead of simply saying "Islam is a religion of peace" after the fact and then waiting for the next attack to occur.

If an Imman in Canada is teaching their followers to perform attacks on the Canadian people, ....


Do you mean strongly criticizing, or actual terrorist training? You appear to be skating on a hopelessly slippery slope


I think we have to be far more aggressive in trying to prevent these attacks and that means getting the Muslim community involved. Maybe it means changing a few things because what we are doing now is playing defense, waiting for attacks to occur and then intercepting the cells to prevent another attack. The British PM was talking about how many attacks have been prevented in the last few months and that is what has to be done.

After each attack, leaders around the world talk about condemning the attacks in the strongest possible way and saying we stand united behind the people of the country. Then Facebook is lit up with the flag of the country where the attacks occurred with everyone being united and saying the terrorists will not win and how we stand together. A few weeks later, we do it again.

It is a slippery slope and I understand that we have to be careful but I think it has to start with the Muslim community. Maybe they have done more than I realize but it is kept quiet but I haven't heard of a single case where someone in the Muslim community came out and informed the police in advance of an attack but in most cases, they come out later and start talking about how they noticed a change and it seems a lot of people suddenly realize the terrorist had become radicalized.

You keep talking about deporting people. Many or most of the UK terrorists have been British born, with British passports. Where would you deport them to? Cancelling passports for people who go to fight for ISIS abroad is something I could get behind.

You are not going to stop every attack, but I think we have to go on the offensive when there are clear problems. There were thousands of people in the UK, the U.S and Canada who went to Syria and were known to be fighting with ISIS. Those people were then allowed back into the country of origin and the police started "watching" them, it happens in Canada too. In those cases, maybe they are not going to be the ones carrying out the attacks but they may be inspiring others to do it. If those people are so intent on going to fight, and are known by police, let them stay there.

My niece is married to a man from Lebanon and he was telling me about a Mosque outside of Toronto, which he left because of the messages being taught. He said it was going too far in terms of the anti-American (not Canadian) rhetoric. I asked him if he reported it to the police and he said no, it was between Muslims.

If they hate the West so much and are originally from a Muslim country, maybe we can start sending them there. Maybe we have to start identifying those people and think about getting them out before they carry out some of their threats. Also, what about the people who do nothing and sit back and allow this to happen?

I wonder where the breaking point is where people say enough. We are spending a lot of time and money on this but it continues and will continue until something changes. Maybe we have to start looking a little closer at the high risk areas, like the Muslim communities for a solution instead of spending more money and investing time chasing them.

    Beyond radicals entering a country to commit terroristic acts, one thing that I notice is that these attacks are often not first gen Muslims, but their offspring. Is it because of poor integration, lack of opportunity, discrimination, etc (seems France has problems more in this vein)? Is it just because they are young, and the young are more passionate in whatever belief? Thoughts?

Well if religious doctrine isn't the issue, then you have no need to go after Mosques, do you? But of course, we know that isn't the case, and you don't really hear how these attacks have nothing to do with Islam (since they're all pretty much immediately tied to ISIS or ISIS sympathizers). Regardless, you have proposed to shut down Mosques based on what they believe and teach. That's where the freedom of religion issue comes into play.


Well first of all, it's "Imam." Second, the basis of freedom of religion, expression, and speech, is that telling people what you believe shouldn't be reason for government to penalize you. There are already laws that cover conspiracy to commit a crime, inciting violence, etc. Simply teaching your congregation that unbelievers should die doesn't really fit the bill, and typically, it's not the message in front of the congregation that's the issue. It's the smaller subgroup of people that meets and plots out of view of the main congregation that are the problem.


Well, defending the rights of people who haven't yet committed a crime is part of the basis of our and your systems of criminal justice. You and I have no right to not have someone in a Mosque or Church telling people we're evil and deserve to die. When you say something has to change, what you apparently mean is that our basic system of beliefs with regard to religion, speech, and system of law all have to change because you're scared. I agree that we need to find ways to combat these types of attacks and plots, but it doesn't really help to abandon our ideas in the process.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

    Well Theresa May is going all non-PC, repeatedly using the phrase "Islamic extremist"...doesn't she know that just creates more terrorists!!! It will be interesting to see what GB actually does, but she sounds serious:

"Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy Isis in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home.
While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.
But the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom."
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...xtremism_134094.html

TM knocked it out the park. the bbc took nearly 80 minutes for someone to use the phrase islamic extremism. Before that they just said she issued a strongly worded statement

In Canada if you are critical of someone's sexual orientation you can be fined by a human rights tribunal. People have actually been fined for being publicly critical of gays. So I don't see how preaching that non-Muslims should die would be okay. Not a big fan of these human rights tribunals though.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If that's true, then the issue is with fining people for criticizing gays, not with allowing Imams to preach in their Mosques.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of course not, why would you ever think that I would apply support for free speech differently?

Beyond radicals entering a country to commit terroristic acts, one thing that I notice is that these attacks are often not first gen Muslims, but their offspring. Is it because of poor integration, lack of opportunity, discrimination, etc (seems France has problems more in this vein)? Is it just because they are young, and the young are more passionate in whatever belief? Thoughts?


I think it is similar to the problems with the Mexicans in America. The generation that came into the U.S did to find work and support their families. They did not come for political or religious reasons, it was purely economic. The problem comes when they have children. Suddenly they feel they don't belong in America because they are different and they don't belong in Mexico because they are American citizens. They have a hard time fitting in, tend to do poorly in school and then can't find work. When you have a large group of young, unemployed boys that don't feel like they belong, they tend to act out.


I think you hit on a lot of the factors. Some people are perfectly fine assimilating and take responsibility for their lives and others don't and they tend to blame everyone but themselves (kind of like Hilary :)).


Now add a problem with Muslim Imam's teaching a radical version of Islam and you can see how things get out of hand.

I don't hold out much hope that the worldwide Muslim population will do anything. I once did, but no longer believe that's a realistic expectation.
More and more, it's looking to me that a radical Muslim is a terrorist that kills innocent people in the most horrific ways imaginable and a moderate Muslim doesn't actually engage in terrorism, but is generally "okay" with radical Muslims doing the dirty work.

If there was any appetite for the worldwide Muslim population to halt radical Muslim terrorism, it could be accomplished. There is none.

---

Lifeguard: "Do you need help?" Me: "No, that's just my butterfly."

As a second-generation Mexican, I salute you!

The missing piece in controlling Muslim extremism is the outrage from the Muslim community. Sure, a representative government shouldn't be policing what people think, altho that gets gray once a person starts advocating violence. But a community can bring to bear a lot of influence on it's members, if it so chooses.

If a convicted pedophile moved into the neighborhood, the community would be outraged. Every parent within a couple blocks would be filling every sort of media with hysterics. The house would be ringed by picketers and TV cameras.

We're very sensitive about racism here in the US. It doesn't take much to get folks really worked up. if some notorious racist shithead moved into the neighborhood, there'd be constant rage, just like above. Out would come the pickets and TV cameras.

Parents are serious about protecting their kids. 99% of the country is exceedingly intolerant of racism. But an Imam preaching violence doesn't seem to get the Muslim community to worked up. The signs that some Muslim kid is turning to violent extremism doesn't seem to get the Muslim community too worked up. The issue on the skyline is usually "don't blame Muslims for a few bad actors". Sure, that's a legit message, but I'd sure like to see "don't blame" be overwhelmed by a blizzard of reports about how the Muslim community has decided to go after those that preach hate and violence, followed by some suspicious disappearances.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

As a second-generation Mexican, I salute you!


I made my comments as a general observation, not to point at every single immigrant. Both of my parents were born outside of Canada so I am a first generation Canadian and fit in just fine.


If you look at the Muslim communities in France, Belgium, Netherlands, the UK and most of Europe, you will see the rise in radicalism within the Muslim communities and almost all of it is with the young and unemployed males. A high percentage are born there with their parents having immigrated there. They are not fitting in and are having a hard time adjusting. There are similarities with the inner cities in America. That doesn't mean everyone ends up like that but if you don't see the problem, you're not looking very hard.

Ad Muncher

It's called "conspiracy to commit murder".