(no subject)

[theweaselking]

On the "terrorists" arrested in Toronto

and more about the heavily theatrical arrests, and how little demonstrated substance there was.

And now, a demonstration of aggressively bigoted "spin" in action, coming from the usual suspects. Compare these two articles.

#1: After a Toronto Mosque is vandalised, Toronto police urge calm, promise protection for Muslims from the vandals.

#2: After a Toronto Mosque is vandalised, Stephen Harper urges Muslims to not give in to their naturally violent ways and retaliate against real citizens for the vandalism.

Unsurprisingly, the second article is from the Sun, who never miss an opportunity to explain how them dirty ragheads are destroying our holy white Christian America Canada.

EDIT: To make this clear, Stephen Harper did *not* say anything of the sort in article #2. It's just written in a ways to imply that he did. I'm accusing the paper in question of bias and distorting the facts, not the Prime Minister of actually saying anything like that. Some members and supporters of Stephen Harper's party are vociferous racists and xenophobes, but Harper himself has never given any reason to assume he shares, rather than simply tolerates, those beliefs.

Comments

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

#2: After a Toronto Mosque is vandalised, Stephen Harper urges Muslims to not give in to their naturally violent ways and retaliate against real citizens for the vandalism.

*headdesk* I've just been rereading Men at Arms, and you know what they say about trolls, always fighting each other.

It's a wonder that Pratchett hasn't given up in disgust yet.

I don't want to think about this more or write anything more serious at this precise point, or I will give up in disgust.

[dolston.livejournal.com]

Harper's quote in the Sun is a statement of historical presedence for people using religion and culture as a justification for their actions. He then follows up with a statement saying Canada is a welcoming of all faiths. Hardly what you are accusing of him of saying.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm not accusing Harper of saying anything like that. His statement was perfectly sensible and covered EVERYBODY, not just the Muslims.

I'm saying The Sun is spinning it like he said that. First sentence: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved to diffuse an angry backlash from Muslim Canadians"

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

In fact, to make it perfectly clear: Harper's neutral statement, in the words of The Sun, implies that it was not neutral, their tone implies that they approve this (new, non-neutral) message, and their choice of words and phrases carries the message that there *was* an angry backlash, and that it was one-sided.

The Sun carefully added in all kinds of message that isn't in the events and isn't in Harper's speech.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Funny, how the twit Star reporter cites 'experts' and 'lawyers' (human rights lawyers, who complain when police shoot in self-defense), who have no idea what they're talking about.

Tactical units were used to take down these fuckers, as they were armed and dangerous. You don't give them a warning, or phone them to ask them to come downtown for questioning. That provides them with an opportunity to take lives - which could be done with a PMV just as easily as a firearm or other hand-held weapon.

Tactical units are also, rightfully, providing security for court proceedings. Both for the safety of the court, and the asshole suspects (who are entitled to such protection).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> (human rights lawyers, who complain when police shoot in self-defense)

More accurately, they *tend* to complain when police shoot after putting the situation into a kill-or-be-killed configuration, and their complaint is not that the cops shot the suspect, but that the situation was unnecessarily allowed to deteriorate to that point.

Unless you're talking about something specific here that I'm not aware of - personally, I've never even heard of a lawyer arguing that cops should not return fire on somebody shooting at them. I have heard them claiming in some cases that the cops escalated the situation to provide them an excuse to shoot the suspect, though.

> they were armed and dangerous.

Nowhere have I seen a reference to them being armed. They were arrested for *trying* to get piles of ammonium nitrate, but never received any of it, according to the RCMP.

More importantly, they're *not* "armed and dangerous" when they're going into a courtroom.

And I have two questions about the tac units in the courtroom.

#1: What reason do we have to assume they're necessary?
#2: You don't feel that chaining the accused hand and foot and surrounding him with heavily armed troops gives a prejudicial impression?


The more I see about this case, the less I think "terrorist" and the more I think "fucking stupid kid"

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

I've seen numerous instances of lawyers slandering LEOs for no good reason. While scrutiny is obviously required when a police officer is forced to fire in self-defense or defense of others, lawyers (being the generally slimy individuals that they are) often take that scrutiny way too far. Taking life is stressful enough for most LEOs, without a lawyer trying to end their career because they did the right thing.

Lawyers think that LEOs should be superheroes, who can affect the outcome of any situation precisely. Obviously, that isn't the case.

As for their weapons - apparently firearms were also seized. Also, their 'training camp' involved firearms of an unknown number and type. In addition to that, you can make explosives and chemical weapons out of any number of readily-available items. Since this group had displayed their intent to acquire such things for illegal purposes, there was no reason to assume that they wouldn't have gathered other materials prior to the order for ammonium nitrate.

Answers, in order:

1 - There are Islamic terror cells operating in Canada. The proceedings would make an attractive and easy target for a number of terrorists to overwhelm. There are also crazy people who would like to shoot terrorists illegally. Everyone in the court, and the area surrounding it must be kept secure. You don't assume that people won't attack the buildings - you assume that they will.

2 - It might. But when you balance the lives of everyone in and around the courtroom against the /possibility/ that proceedings might be prejudiced, I'd take the increased security any day.

As for the threat that the terrorist suspects pose (though they're fairly lame terrorists - granted), people with certain training can kill other human beings in seconds. It isn't hard, if you know the tricks of the trade. Unfortunately, I think that handcuffing them or otherwise restraining and isolating them is a good idea.