I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
How long before the "it turned out it wasn't him that took him down" reports start to come out ala jessica lunch? I'm not saying he didn't take him out. But I'm not gonna say he did. At least not right now
I won't doubt that he is the one who killed the terrorist until there is reason to do so. It would be very uncharacteristic in this country for them to make someone the so-called hero when he's not... and for this guy to take the credit when he doesn't "deserve" it. If people are legitimately confused or misinformed, that's one thing. But actually lying about it? Not a chance. Why do you doubt it btw? Because he's wearing that silly outfit?
I just don't believe ANYTHING these days. But that's just ME.
Don't stop believing, bb! Just don't rush to believe without evidence.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
"Ottawa gunman sought jail time to beat crack habit in 2011."
Wow. Way to really pull yourself out of the gutter dude.
Its not as unusual as you may think. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons beyond the obvious. A fair number who are on the streets with few personal resources (financial and otherwise) commit crimes to get a roof over their heads and a reliable source of food, if only for a few days. Some definitely commit crimes in order to get away from situations that may seem worse to them than jail, or to try to access treatment facilities, because the reality is that in jail you may have access to a health care worker who can fill in the correct forms and make the right calls, when you might be incapable of doing that for yourself. Some are so institutionalized that they have no idea how to act outside of the rigid power structure of jail.
And too many other reasons to go into here.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
It's early going but this is looking less like an act of terrorism and more the act of a troubled man. But like I said it's very early going, things could change.
And then there is this from today....this is the kind of shit that worries me
"Later, during question period, Harper suggested that changes could be coming to laws that govern how Canada’s national security agencies track suspected extremists.
Mulcair asked what immediate measures are being taken to ensure security at Parliament and across Canada, and Harper replied that: “We are looking at various laws and options under the law to strengthen the ability to survey, detain and arrest individuals who are threats to us.”
In response to a question from Trudeau, Harper warned that “there are serious security threats in this country, and in many cases those serious security threats continue to be at large and not subject to detention or arrest.
“I know that is something that concerns Canadians, it concerns the government and we are working with the security agencies to determine how we can handle that situation.”
He later suggested that Canada’s security agencies “may need additional tools” to address the threat of suspected Canadian extremists.
Glenn Greenwald wrote this article prior to the shooting...it was in reaction to Monday's car attack on a soldier in Quebec. I'm curious what people think about the second point he makes regarding labelling attacks against military personnel, serving a country at war, as terrorism? (edited for character limit - see link for full article)
Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/ .......... Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a “terrorist” attack? As I have written many times over the last several years, and as some of the best scholarship proves, “terrorism” is a word utterly devoid of objective or consistent meaning. It is little more than a totally malleable, propagandistic fear-mongering term used by Western governments (and non-Western ones) to justify whatever actions they undertake. As Professor Tomis Kapitan wrote in a brilliant essay in The New York Times on Monday: “Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of ‘terrorism.’”
But to the extent the term has any common understanding, it includes the deliberate (or wholly reckless) targeting of civilians with violence for political ends. But in this case in Canada, it wasn’t civilians who were targeted. If one believes the government’s accounts of the incident, the driver waited two hours until he saw a soldier in uniform. In other words, he seems to have deliberately avoided attacking civilians, and targeted a soldier instead – a member of a military that is currently fighting a war.
Again, the point isn’t justifiability. There is a compelling argument to make that undeployed soldiers engaged in normal civilian activities at home are not valid targets under the laws of war (although the U.S. and its closest allies use extremely broad and permissive standards for what constitutes legitimate military targets when it comes to their own violence). The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word “terrorism,” and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).
That’s because the most common functional definition of “terrorism” in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: “violence directed at Westerners by Muslims” (when not used to mean “violence by Muslims,” it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term “terrorism” has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called “terrorism” is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.
This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the “terrorism” term lies at heart of that. As Professor Kapitan wrote yesterday in The New York Times:
Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of “terror” is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the “terrorist” label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by “contra” rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.
Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away from their own acts of terror.
At this point, “terrorism” is the term that means nothing, but justifies everything. It is long past time that media outlets begin skeptically questioning its usage by political officials rather than mindlessly parroting it.
UPDATE: Multiple conservative commentators have claimed that this article and my subsequent discussion of it are about this morning’s shooting of a solider in Ottawa. Aside from the fact that what I wrote is expressly about a completely different incident – one that took place in Quebec on Monday – this article and my comments were published before this morning’s shooting spree was reported. So unless someone believes I possess powers of clairvoyance, the claim that I was commenting on the Ottawa shooting – about which virtually nothing is known, including the identity and motive of the shooter(s) – is obviously false.
Then there’s also the extremely predictable accusation that I was justifying the attack on the soldiers. I know from prior experience in discussing these questions that no matter how clear you make it that you are writing about causation and not justification, many will still distort what you write to claim you’ve justified the attack. That’s true even if one makes as clear as the English language permits that you’re not writing about justification: “The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation.” If there’s a way to make that any clearer, please let me know.
One more time: the difference between “causation” and “justification” is so obvious that it should require no explanation. If one observes that someone who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day can expect to develop emphysema, that’s an observation about causation, not a celebration of the person’s illness. Only a willful desire to distort, or some deep confusion, can account for a failure to process this most basic point.
UPDATE II: In that brilliant essay I referenced above, published just three days ago in The New York Times, Professor Tomis Kaptian made this point:
Obviously, to point out the causes and objectives of particular terrorist actions is to imply nothing about their legitimacy — that is an independent matter….
That point is so simple and, as he said, “obvious” that I have a hard time understanding what could account for some commentators conflating the two other than a willful desire to mislead.
And then there is this from today....this is the kind of shit that worries me
"Later, during question period, Harper suggested that changes could be coming to laws that govern how Canada’s national security agencies track suspected extremists.
Mulcair asked what immediate measures are being taken to ensure security at Parliament and across Canada, and Harper replied that: “We are looking at various laws and options under the law to strengthen the ability to survey, detain and arrest individuals who are threats to us.”
In response to a question from Trudeau, Harper warned that “there are serious security threats in this country, and in many cases those serious security threats continue to be at large and not subject to detention or arrest.
“I know that is something that concerns Canadians, it concerns the government and we are working with the security agencies to determine how we can handle that situation.”
He later suggested that Canada’s security agencies “may need additional tools” to address the threat of suspected Canadian extremists.
And then there is this from today....this is the kind of shit that worries me
"Later, during question period, Harper suggested that changes could be coming to laws that govern how Canada’s national security agencies track suspected extremists.
Mulcair asked what immediate measures are being taken to ensure security at Parliament and across Canada, and Harper replied that: “We are looking at various laws and options under the law to strengthen the ability to survey, detain and arrest individuals who are threats to us.”
In response to a question from Trudeau, Harper warned that “there are serious security threats in this country, and in many cases those serious security threats continue to be at large and not subject to detention or arrest.
“I know that is something that concerns Canadians, it concerns the government and we are working with the security agencies to determine how we can handle that situation.”
He later suggested that Canada’s security agencies “may need additional tools” to address the threat of suspected Canadian extremists.
"Ottawa gunman sought jail time to beat crack habit in 2011."
Wow. Way to really pull yourself out of the gutter dude.
Its not as unusual as you may think. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons beyond the obvious. A fair number who are on the streets with few personal resources (financial and otherwise) commit crimes to get a roof over their heads and a reliable source of food, if only for a few days. Some definitely commit crimes in order to get away from situations that may seem worse to them than jail, or to try to access treatment facilities, because the reality is that in jail you may have access to a health care worker who can fill in the correct forms and make the right calls, when you might be incapable of doing that for yourself. Some are so institutionalized that they have no idea how to act outside of the rigid power structure of jail.
And too many other reasons to go into here.
Oh yeah, I know it's a fairly common way to get clean (a somewhat effective a totally immoral method). I was actually making a sarcastic comment about how he went that far out of his way to get clean only to go on a shooting rampage.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"Ottawa gunman sought jail time to beat crack habit in 2011."
Wow. Way to really pull yourself out of the gutter dude.
Its not as unusual as you may think. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons beyond the obvious. A fair number who are on the streets with few personal resources (financial and otherwise) commit crimes to get a roof over their heads and a reliable source of food, if only for a few days. Some definitely commit crimes in order to get away from situations that may seem worse to them than jail, or to try to access treatment facilities, because the reality is that in jail you may have access to a health care worker who can fill in the correct forms and make the right calls, when you might be incapable of doing that for yourself. Some are so institutionalized that they have no idea how to act outside of the rigid power structure of jail.
And too many other reasons to go into here.
Oh yeah, I know it's a fairly common way to get clean (a somewhat effective a totally immoral method). I was actually making a sarcastic comment about how he went that far out of his way to get clean only to go on a shooting rampage.
Oops, sorry; totally missed your point there.
I note one of the articles says he wanted to go to Libya because he "couldn't get drug treatment in Canada". I wonder what the availability of drug treatment is like in Libya.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I often find it hard to feel empathy for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But when I saw the grim picture of him talking on the phone following the end of his confinement in the locked down House of Commons yesterday, I sensed in him a vulnerability he rarely exhibits. Harper, like his fellow MPs, Parliamentary staff, media, visitors and children in the downstairs daycare, had likely hunkered down behind locked doors, no doubt traumatized by uncertainty when an armed gunman entered the building. Because no one knew who the gunman was after, all were potential targets. For half a day, everyone on lockdown no doubt felt the fear, despair, sadness and fragile sense of mortality that people in Iraq and Syria have experienced daily for decades, an extra punch of which they will soon receive at the hands of Canadian CF-18 bombers. It's the kind of trauma not to be wished upon anyone, and I hope all affected will get the kind of counselling and therapeutic support necessary to deal with what may emerge as multiple cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), otherwise known as the condition that you get denied proper treatment for when you are a returning Canadian military veteran. Like those in Afghanistan who suffered 13 years of Canadian bombardment (upwards of a billion Canadian bullets fired), night raids, transfers to torture, and the daily indignities of life under military occupation, those Parliamentarians with the power to declare war -- and send somebody else overseas to fight it for them -- felt, in a relatively limited fashion, what it's like for millions of the world's war-weary populations. The image of a cowering John Baird or Jason Kenney hiding in a barricaded office must have proven a stark contrast to the swaggering, macho manner in which these men urged Canada to declare war on ISIS, further fuelling the flames of fear and hatred against Muslims. Out-of-the-blue violence Thankfully, most of yesterday's hostages to violence in Parliament went home last night to warm houses with showers, uninterrupted electricity supply, food in the fridge, and the knowledge that this horror is unlikely to happen tomorrow and four or five times for the remainder of the month or periodically for the rest of their lives. But had this happened in Iraq, such relative safety would not be guaranteed, in part due to Canada's role in obliterating that nation's economy, electricity and water supply, and health-care system, first though intensive bombing in 1991, military enforcement of a decade's worth of brutal sanctions that killed a million Iraqis, and renewed support and participation in the 2003 invasion that was made possible by Canadian weapons, technical components, navy personnel and equipment, embedded troops, and high-ranking military officials. It was also out of Iraq's torturing prisons during the occupation that numerous ISIS leaders emerged. The tragic murder of a young Canadian reservist and the Parliamentary shootout was all the more shocking because of its sudden, seemingly out-of-the-blue fashion. In the same way, on a daily basis in tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, children in schools, celebrants at weddings, and other individuals and families are suddenly, shockingly killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a remote control-operated drone, likely with the Canadian-built targeting camera courtesy of L-3 Wescam in Burlington, Ontario. What is being treated as Canada's 9/11 is a day that recalls the comments made half a century ago by the great Malcolm X, who commented that the assassination of President Kennedy was a case of "chickens coming home to roost," a result of a "climate of hate" fostered by a U.S. political and corporate establishment regularly overthrowing governments and assassinating (or plotting against) a variety of leaders from Patrice Lumumba to Fidel Castro. At the time, Malcolm X was vilified for speaking the truth, one that America was not ready to accept, just as many Canadians may be unwilling to do now.
Indeed, how many Canadians reading that last paragraph would step back and say, "That's them, not us"? The horrible sound of gunfire in Parliament must have sounded a small bit of like some opening moments during the Canadian-supported coup against the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, one of many coups Canada has given support to (including more recently the coups in Honduras, Egypt, Haiti, etc.). One reporter gasped that it was simply incongruous to see SWAT teams escorting her through the Parliament in which she worked, and yet Canadian policy throughout much of the world forces her counterparts to walk that ring of heavily armed men on a daily basis. Rather than viewing yesterday's tragic events as a wake-up call to seriously examine Canada's negative role on the world stage and the inevitable "climate of hate" to which we are contributing, we can expect nothing less than a ride on the Platitude Express, which embarked within minutes of the first bullets being fired. The Platitude Express From endless references to the "loss of innocence" to the pronouncements that "things will never be the same" (especially in the "hallowed halls" of Parliament), we are witnessing the cranking up of our self-loving myth machine into high gear. In this climate, do not expect our finest hour. Yesterday's events will be used as the springboard to call for greater militarization of the national culture and justification for unending war against ISIL/ISIS or any other convenient enemy-du-jour. This will lead to further increases in war spending, despite the fact that the War Dept. was supposed to come up with $2 billion in cuts. The wars in Ukraine and Iraq -- costs for which are being kept secret, without much protest -- will easily double that. These events will also be used to attack anyone who questions Canada's role in wars past or present.
Continued below (seriously, can we lose the character limits on the train? A current events page that won't allow us to post any in-depth journalism in a single post? )
New repressive laws The events of yesterday will likely also have a congealing impact on Parliamentarians who, understandably, shared a trauma together. Wednesday was supposed to be the Harper government's opportunity to unleash a new round of legislative measures designed to give CSIS and the RCMP even more freedom to trade information with torturers, monitor people overseas, take part in extraordinary rendition programs, and be completely immune from prosecution and oversight by the creation of a special class privilege that would assert the right of CSIS agents and informers not to be questioned about their activities in any court of law, public or secret. But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them." Perhaps the most immediate impact will be felt in certain communities targeted for racial and religious profiling. While Canadian soldiers have been told to stay indoors and not show themselves in public, individuals of South Asian or Middle Eastern heritage, and certainly anyone who may be a Muslim or perceived as one, may have second thoughts about being out in public. These communities will be the subject of demands from the media and some "community leaders" to "out" radicalized young people, to call in "suspicious" behavior (undefined), and to report their neighbours to CSIS or the Mounties. They will find greater difficulty travelling, and they will learn first-hand about something called the Passenger Protect Program (or no-fly list). This is especially so since, while we do not know much about the shooter, media have been quick to point out that although he was a Canadian, he was of "Algerian" heritage, and a recent convert to Islam. Both are completely irrelevant factors, but so commonly part of the daily anti-terror discourse that no second thought is given to the consequences of bringing it up. The game is no longer far away Glenn Greenwald adequately summed things up by asking why Canada, a nation that has been at war for 13 years and counting, would be shocked that someone might actually (however unjustifiably), do what he felt was needed to fight back. But as a country that wages war but has never suffered from war the way Russia or France or Syria or Iraq have, we have always been insulated against the consequences of our actions, buoyed by a mythology that allows us to wear Canadian flags on backpacking trips through Europe. By day's end, Harper addressed the nation, his discourse unchanged from the bellicose rumblings of last week as he rammed through a Parliamentary vote to bomb Iraq and Syria: "Canada will never be intimidated…redouble our efforts…savagery…no safe haven…" After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
Interesting article, Drowned out. On the one hand:
But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them.",
and on the other:
After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
These quote reflect two distinct outcomes, the former being increased paranoia (possibly leading to restrictions of civil liberties), the latter a movement away from an addiction to violence and a "militarized culture".
Which will prevail?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Interesting article, Drowned out. On the one hand:
But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them.",
and on the other:
After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
These quote reflect two distinct outcomes, the former being increased paranoia (possibly leading to restrictions of civil liberties), the latter a movement away from an addiction to violence and a "militarized culture".
Which will prevail?
I like to think one of our opposition leaders will at least stand up to harper's push for anti-liberty laws...I don't think canada is as galvanized by fear and hate as Harper would hope. (Example: a mosque in cold lake alberta was vandalized yesterday with 'go home' graffiti, etc...a crowd of non-Muslims showed up today to repair the damage). A true opposition leader would stand up against that, and would find a lot of support. Unfortunately, I think the role of true opposition leader died with Jack Layton. They're all in cahoots.
I had friends posting articles calling for concealed carry laws in Canada yesterday. Sickening how reactionary people can be.
Interesting article, Drowned out. On the one hand:
But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them.",
and on the other:
After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
These quote reflect two distinct outcomes, the former being increased paranoia (possibly leading to restrictions of civil liberties), the latter a movement away from an addiction to violence and a "militarized culture".
Which will prevail?
I like to think one of our opposition leaders will at least stand up to harper's push for anti-liberty laws...I don't think canada is as galvanized by fear and hate as Harper would hope. (Example: a mosque in cold lake alberta was vandalized yesterday with 'go home' graffiti, etc...a crowd of non-Muslims showed up today to repair the damage). A true opposition leader would stand up against that, and would find a lot of support. Unfortunately, I think the role of true opposition leader died with Jack Layton. They're all in cahoots.
I had friends posting articles calling for concealed carry laws in Canada yesterday. Sickening how reactionary people can be.
Naomi Klein's shock doctrine in full effect.
Everyone should be made to read The Shock Doctrine.
At the end of the day the government of the day is going to use this pay some more silly restrictive laws that take away more of our rights and invade more of our privacy.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
He's dead on. I am just hoping that Canadians don't fall for that bullshit.
Just got done watching the news and they interviewed a bunch of people who went to the cenotaph's today and so many used the word terrorist ... so I think their falling for it ... unfortunately so many are to lazy to switch off the latest reality tv show and get informed. Not to mention how many mentioned they had the military men and women in "their thoughts that are overseas fighting for our freedom" ... even though where not under attack, where not being invaded ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
He's dead on. I am just hoping that Canadians don't fall for that bullshit.
... even though where not under attack, where not being invaded ...
The people that are informed know the difference between we are, where, we're and wear.
Oh goody the fucking grammar police are here. What did my fucking comments offend you somehow? For fucks sake people like you contribute fuck all to a conversation.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
He's dead on. I am just hoping that Canadians don't fall for that bullshit.
... even though where not under attack, where not being invaded ...
The people that are informed know the difference between we are, where, we're and wear.
Oh goody the fucking grammar police are here. What did my fucking comments offend you somehow? For fucks sake people like you contribute fuck all to a conversation.
How can you converse with a person that drops an explicative word in every written sentence?
Comments
Just don't rush to believe without evidence.
"Ottawa gunman sought jail time to beat crack habit in 2011."
Wow. Way to really pull yourself out of the gutter dude.
And too many other reasons to go into here.
But like I said it's very early going, things could change.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/23/details-of-michael-zehaf-bibeaus-life-paint-a-picture-of-a-man-troubled-by-drugs-and-crime/
Details of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s life paint a picture of a man troubled by drugs and crime
"Later, during question period, Harper suggested that changes could be coming to laws that govern how Canada’s national security agencies track suspected extremists.
Mulcair asked what immediate measures are being taken to ensure security at Parliament and across Canada, and Harper replied that: “We are looking at various laws and options under the law to strengthen the ability to survey, detain and arrest individuals who are threats to us.”
In response to a question from Trudeau, Harper warned that “there are serious security threats in this country, and in many cases those serious security threats continue to be at large and not subject to detention or arrest.
“I know that is something that concerns Canadians, it concerns the government and we are working with the security agencies to determine how we can handle that situation.”
He later suggested that Canada’s security agencies “may need additional tools” to address the threat of suspected Canadian extremists.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/undaunted-mps-return-to-house-of-commons-1.2067254#ixzz3H1vmvWLS
I note one of the articles says he wanted to go to Libya because he "couldn't get drug treatment in Canada". I wonder what the availability of drug treatment is like in Libya.
BY
MATTHEW BEHRENS
| OCTOBER 23, 2014
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/10/reflections-on-violent-day-ottawa#.VEkHYc-EoB8.twitter
I often find it hard to feel empathy for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But when I saw the grim picture of him talking on the phone following the end of his confinement in the locked down House of Commons yesterday, I sensed in him a vulnerability he rarely exhibits. Harper, like his fellow MPs, Parliamentary staff, media, visitors and children in the downstairs daycare, had likely hunkered down behind locked doors, no doubt traumatized by uncertainty when an armed gunman entered the building. Because no one knew who the gunman was after, all were potential targets. For half a day, everyone on lockdown no doubt felt the fear, despair, sadness and fragile sense of mortality that people in Iraq and Syria have experienced daily for decades, an extra punch of which they will soon receive at the hands of Canadian CF-18 bombers.
It's the kind of trauma not to be wished upon anyone, and I hope all affected will get the kind of counselling and therapeutic support necessary to deal with what may emerge as multiple cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), otherwise known as the condition that you get denied proper treatment for when you are a returning Canadian military veteran.
Like those in Afghanistan who suffered 13 years of Canadian bombardment (upwards of a billion Canadian bullets fired), night raids, transfers to torture, and the daily indignities of life under military occupation, those Parliamentarians with the power to declare war -- and send somebody else overseas to fight it for them -- felt, in a relatively limited fashion, what it's like for millions of the world's war-weary populations. The image of a cowering John Baird or Jason Kenney hiding in a barricaded office must have proven a stark contrast to the swaggering, macho manner in which these men urged Canada to declare war on ISIS, further fuelling the flames of fear and hatred against Muslims.
Out-of-the-blue violence
Thankfully, most of yesterday's hostages to violence in Parliament went home last night to warm houses with showers, uninterrupted electricity supply, food in the fridge, and the knowledge that this horror is unlikely to happen tomorrow and four or five times for the remainder of the month or periodically for the rest of their lives. But had this happened in Iraq, such relative safety would not be guaranteed, in part due to Canada's role in obliterating that nation's economy, electricity and water supply, and health-care system, first though intensive bombing in 1991, military enforcement of a decade's worth of brutal sanctions that killed a million Iraqis, and renewed support and participation in the 2003 invasion that was made possible by Canadian weapons, technical components, navy personnel and equipment, embedded troops, and high-ranking military officials. It was also out of Iraq's torturing prisons during the occupation that numerous ISIS leaders emerged.
The tragic murder of a young Canadian reservist and the Parliamentary shootout was all the more shocking because of its sudden, seemingly out-of-the-blue fashion. In the same way, on a daily basis in tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, children in schools, celebrants at weddings, and other individuals and families are suddenly, shockingly killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a remote control-operated drone, likely with the Canadian-built targeting camera courtesy of L-3 Wescam in Burlington, Ontario.
What is being treated as Canada's 9/11 is a day that recalls the comments made half a century ago by the great Malcolm X, who commented that the assassination of President Kennedy was a case of "chickens coming home to roost," a result of a "climate of hate" fostered by a U.S. political and corporate establishment regularly overthrowing governments and assassinating (or plotting against) a variety of leaders from Patrice Lumumba to Fidel Castro. At the time, Malcolm X was vilified for speaking the truth, one that America was not ready to accept, just as many Canadians may be unwilling to do now.
Indeed, how many Canadians reading that last paragraph would step back and say, "That's them, not us"? The horrible sound of gunfire in Parliament must have sounded a small bit of like some opening moments during the Canadian-supported coup against the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, one of many coups Canada has given support to (including more recently the coups in Honduras, Egypt, Haiti, etc.). One reporter gasped that it was simply incongruous to see SWAT teams escorting her through the Parliament in which she worked, and yet Canadian policy throughout much of the world forces her counterparts to walk that ring of heavily armed men on a daily basis.
Rather than viewing yesterday's tragic events as a wake-up call to seriously examine Canada's negative role on the world stage and the inevitable "climate of hate" to which we are contributing, we can expect nothing less than a ride on the Platitude Express, which embarked within minutes of the first bullets being fired.
The Platitude Express
From endless references to the "loss of innocence" to the pronouncements that "things will never be the same" (especially in the "hallowed halls" of Parliament), we are witnessing the cranking up of our self-loving myth machine into high gear.
In this climate, do not expect our finest hour. Yesterday's events will be used as the springboard to call for greater militarization of the national culture and justification for unending war against ISIL/ISIS or any other convenient enemy-du-jour. This will lead to further increases in war spending, despite the fact that the War Dept. was supposed to come up with $2 billion in cuts. The wars in Ukraine and Iraq -- costs for which are being kept secret, without much protest -- will easily double that. These events will also be used to attack anyone who questions Canada's role in wars past or present.
Continued below (seriously, can we lose the character limits on the train? A current events page that won't allow us to post any in-depth journalism in a single post? )
The events of yesterday will likely also have a congealing impact on Parliamentarians who, understandably, shared a trauma together. Wednesday was supposed to be the Harper government's opportunity to unleash a new round of legislative measures designed to give CSIS and the RCMP even more freedom to trade information with torturers, monitor people overseas, take part in extraordinary rendition programs, and be completely immune from prosecution and oversight by the creation of a special class privilege that would assert the right of CSIS agents and informers not to be questioned about their activities in any court of law, public or secret.
But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them."
Perhaps the most immediate impact will be felt in certain communities targeted for racial and religious profiling. While Canadian soldiers have been told to stay indoors and not show themselves in public, individuals of South Asian or Middle Eastern heritage, and certainly anyone who may be a Muslim or perceived as one, may have second thoughts about being out in public. These communities will be the subject of demands from the media and some "community leaders" to "out" radicalized young people, to call in "suspicious" behavior (undefined), and to report their neighbours to CSIS or the Mounties. They will find greater difficulty travelling, and they will learn first-hand about something called the Passenger Protect Program (or no-fly list).
This is especially so since, while we do not know much about the shooter, media have been quick to point out that although he was a Canadian, he was of "Algerian" heritage, and a recent convert to Islam. Both are completely irrelevant factors, but so commonly part of the daily anti-terror discourse that no second thought is given to the consequences of bringing it up.
The game is no longer far away
Glenn Greenwald adequately summed things up by asking why Canada, a nation that has been at war for 13 years and counting, would be shocked that someone might actually (however unjustifiably), do what he felt was needed to fight back. But as a country that wages war but has never suffered from war the way Russia or France or Syria or Iraq have, we have always been insulated against the consequences of our actions, buoyed by a mythology that allows us to wear Canadian flags on backpacking trips through Europe.
By day's end, Harper addressed the nation, his discourse unchanged from the bellicose rumblings of last week as he rammed through a Parliamentary vote to bomb Iraq and Syria: "Canada will never be intimidated…redouble our efforts…savagery…no safe haven…"
After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
Anybody else dig the audio from inside the halls. One big bang and then about thiry bullets at the guy. Talk about going out in a blaze of glory.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them.",
and on the other:
After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.
These quote reflect two distinct outcomes, the former being increased paranoia (possibly leading to restrictions of civil liberties), the latter a movement away from an addiction to violence and a "militarized culture".
Which will prevail?
A true opposition leader would stand up against that, and would find a lot of support. Unfortunately, I think the role of true opposition leader died with Jack Layton. They're all in cahoots.
I had friends posting articles calling for concealed carry laws in Canada yesterday. Sickening how reactionary people can be.
Naomi Klein's shock doctrine in full effect.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I am just hoping that Canadians don't fall for that bullshit.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon