On October 24 2014 08:18 Wombat_NI wrote: I hope you Canucks are slightly exaggerating your anecdotal accounts of people who are clearly mentally ill and on the streets, such things are a really sad thing to see happen anywhere.
I really, really wish I was. It's a serious social issue in Vancouver's DTES, and to be frank I'm really pissed off right now at our mayor and premier of BC for basically allowing the services for the mentally ill to deteriorate.
Other Downtown Eastside residents, who did not want to give their names, also recalled seeing Zehaf-Bibeau walking up and down East Hastings Street with a backpack and observed that he was a drug user.
He used to frequent the Native Health clinic and Oppenheimer Park, Ranger said.
Oppenheimer Park is just a few blocks from my place. It was a tent city up until a few days ago.
This is Hastings between Pigeon Park and Main St, where most of the homeless, mentally ill, sex workers, addicts and drug dealers camp out during the day. It's might be the poorest postal code in all of Canada. You can buy cheap cigarettes on the corner. You do not want to walk along this street at night.
On October 24 2014 08:18 Wombat_NI wrote: I hope you Canucks are slightly exaggerating your anecdotal accounts of people who are clearly mentally ill and on the streets, such things are a really sad thing to see happen anywhere.
Not really. The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is basically the de facto stomping ground for most of the homeless, drug addicted, impoverished and generally "socially unfit" people, at least for the main city centre area.
I wouldn't say that it's because everyone just ignores the mentally ill, though. It's a combination of major addiction problems, reduction in social aid, lack of voluntary desire for help, etc. Some people will respond well if you give them open avenues to make things better, and some people want to keep doing what they're doing and will respond very poorly if you try to make them see otherwise.
On October 24 2014 08:18 Wombat_NI wrote: I hope you Canucks are slightly exaggerating your anecdotal accounts of people who are clearly mentally ill and on the streets, such things are a really sad thing to see happen anywhere.
I really, really wish I was. It's a serious social issue in Vancouver's DTES, and to be frank I'm really pissed off right now at our mayor and premier of BC for basically allowing the services for the mentally ill to deteriorate.
Other Downtown Eastside residents, who did not want to give their names, also recalled seeing Zehaf-Bibeau walking up and down East Hastings Street with a backpack and observed that he was a drug user.
He used to frequent the Native Health clinic and Oppenheimer Park, Ranger said.
Oppenheimer Park is just a few blocks from my place. It was a tent city up until a few days ago.
This is Hastings between Pigeon Park and Main St, where most of the homeless, mentally ill, sex workers, addicts and drug dealers camp out during the day. It's might be the poorest postal code in all of Canada. You can buy cheap cigarettes on the corner. You do not want to walk along this street at night.
The ironic thing is, the land which the homeless occupy is probably in the price range of a billion +. If BC or Vancouver had reasonably decent politicians they would essentially eminent domain that land, clean it up and sell it to Chinese money launderers like the rest of downtown Vancouver has already been and use the proceeds to set up a functioning rehab system down there. As it is, these people are pushed out one development at a time further away from the coast.
On October 24 2014 08:18 Wombat_NI wrote: I hope you Canucks are slightly exaggerating your anecdotal accounts of people who are clearly mentally ill and on the streets, such things are a really sad thing to see happen anywhere.
People like Nietzsche, Wilde,Van Gogh, etc were also "clearly mentally ill and on the streets" at some point in their lives too, frankly half the people who are acting erratically on the streets act that way because they were ostracized and misunderstood. Worse still are the people who are completely moral and kind beings yet were told that they were crazy by assholes who denounce their sexuality/philosophy/moral compass just because they don't fit in the mainstream. I hate the completely blanket excuse that "they are mentally ill", because it makes people apathetic to those suffering from real genetic dispositions and belittles those who just hold different viewpoints from us.
You would be surprised how many people were kicked out onto the streets by their families or communities because of shit like that, even nowadays in a country like Canada.
On October 23 2014 14:06 9heart wrote: If Harper had sent six C-130s filled with food, instead of six fighters filled with bombs, to the countries where ISIS is operating, the motivation for these shootings would be lessened if not eliminated.
A 24-year old lost his life today, why? Because Harper needs to bang his war drum to rally the conservative electorate for his next re-election campaign.
This is a really cowardly way to think I feel. There is no need to scapegoat about murder. I don't think you can avoid fighting a terrorist group based on the fact that some crazy person will commit further murder elsewhere in the world. Why was Theo van Gogh murdered? He was a filmmaker, there's no war hawks you can point to to blame his murder on. If someone perpetrates violence they are the ones responsible.
The idea of giving someone food in exchange for stopping murder sounds like a hostage situation to me.
On October 23 2014 14:06 9heart wrote: Bush did the same with his war in Iraq in 2003. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the american carrier? It had nothing to do with humanitarian aide, or WMDs, because why Iraq and not Congo? Or Nigeria and the boko haram? Or any of numerous other humanitarian crises taking place during that time?
Are you saying if you intervene in one place then there's no valid reason unless you intervene everywhere?
This is a clear dilemma because there's no way out; if there's no intervention you can cry cowardly inaction, if there's intervention everywhere you'd cry imperialism, and if there's selective intervention you cry hypocrisy.
There is no dilemma, Canada's first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and strengthen political institutions in those countries.
The Prime Minister has not outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He cannot even answer basic questions about the breadth or cost of Canada's military deployment.
When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq and how many? No answer. What contribution have our American allies requested? There was no answer. How much will this mission cost? What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? There was no answer, no answer, no answer. These are not hypothetical questions.
The only ally of the Prime Minister's plan to begin a 30-day mission in Iraq was the Liberal Party, even though there was not a shadow of a doubt that it would lead us exactly where we are today.
But now that Canadian troops are committed, Conservatives are telling us the mission have been expanded to air strikes, refuelling capabilities, aerial surveillance. Now the Prime Minister is specifically opening the door to bombing in Syria!
The United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS under one name or another for over 10 years. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq, Mujahideen Shura Council, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, Syria, it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade.
In one of the Prime Minister's few real answers about this mission, he said that Canada would be in Iraq until ISIS no longer has the capability to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else. Now he claims it will be only six months. It cannot be both!
The defeat of the insurgency in Iraq is a goal that the United States has been trying, without success, to achieve since the wrong-headed invasion of 2003. All of the horrors unfolding before our eyes are as a result of that failed mission.
Remember, back in 2003, it was the current Prime Minister, at the time leader of the opposition, who went to the Americans to berate the Canadian government for not getting involved in what he considered "a just and noble cause." Their nostalgia is such that his immigration minister during the emergency debate in this House just a few days ago actually dusted off the canard of weapons of mass destruction to try to justify this war.
The Prime Minister insists that this mission in Iraq will not be allowed to become a quagmire, but is that not precisely what our American allies have been facing in Iraq for the last 10 years? Will Canada be stuck a decade from now mired in a war we wisely avoided entering a decade ago?
ISIS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders.
The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another western-led invasion in that region. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political institution and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves.
Yesterday Canadians all felt the consequences of Harper's failed diplomacy.
When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq and how many? No answer.
This is need to know. Most people don't.
The thing is, it does not matter if isis knows how much of a commitment we're going to make. They are not a government that has to justify their military expenditures: us putting ten soldiers, or 68000 soldiers on the ground does not change the amount of support they are going to get.
And in a democracy, yes, the expenditures and overall plan for a military action are knowledge that needs to be known, in this situation. Maybe if we were going to war with a coalition of governments or another country, but these guys aren't getting more support than they already have.
Oh, and going into war without an effective plan on how to stabilize the region is exactly what will cause us to get bogged down in the same shit the united states had to deal with.
The west had been trying to stabilize the region through force for decades now. What do we have to show for it, besides a lot of dead people?
On October 24 2014 10:53 9heart wrote: The Prime Minister has not outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He cannot even answer basic questions about the breadth or cost of Canada's military deployment.
When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq and how many? No answer. What contribution have our American allies requested? There was no answer. How much will this mission cost? What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? There was no answer, no answer, no answer. These are not hypothetical questions.
keep the region nice and unstable so that oil in alberta can continue being sold at sky high prices.
have no plan. continue with non-answers. just keep fumbling around in the region so the constant level of uncertainty keeps prices of hte commodity high.
maybe next we can invade every country that grows potatoes. so our farmers can start making some real money on those spuds. PEI farmers can start making some alberta tar sands level money.
For Prime Minister Harper the death of an armed forces member carrying a symbolic weapon guarding a symbolic war hero was ...
mission accomplished.
Canada has been a nation of commodity brokers for what... 147 years? that ain't changin' any time soon.
So it took a while for the government to further respond to the terror attack and now it is, along with a broader anti-Terrorism push, the current government intends to criminalize speech.
Asked whether Ottawa would distinguish between real jihadis and a teenager making idle talk in his basement when it comes to statements that encourage terrorism, Mr. Harper signalled the government doesn’t intend to make exceptions for people. He compared criminalizing the incitement to commit terrorist to bans on joking about bombs at the airport, stating “we cannot tolerate this.”
of course its carefully edited.. so that the powers that be can control the narrative. this part here is complete and total bullshit... “This man’s radicalization towards criminality and violence, it was a very slow burn and I think that as that began to intensify, people ought to have been concerned,” Paulson told reporters. “People close to him — both friends, people that he ran across — ought to have taken it upon themselves to say, ‘This is getting to a point where we ought to do something.’
they are just fishing for excuses to arrest, charge and convict people.
On January 31 2015 16:31 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm gonna blow you up isn't a funny joke anyways. Teenagers wanna show how cool they are they can sit in a cell. It will be a good lesson
what is more important is why they are being placed in a cell.
in 2000 it was illegal for me to threaten to blow people up. these teenagers should just be dealt with in the same way. instead of trying to turn every criminal utterance into a threat to national security.
by making every criminal act a threat to national security we end up in a situation benjamin franklin foretold about his own country: "should this country fall to oppression it will be under the guise of fighting a foriegn enemy".
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau specifically states in his manifesto-video thing that he is angry about Canada's military presence in Iraq.
He continues to run this country off of opinion polls... which i fully support... so if he wants to have Canada in Iraq in a very limited way then fine. But, he better be careful with this anti-terror legislation because it could blow up in his face.
when the 54% in favour of limited presence in Iraq swings to 20% Harper better be prepared to pull those troops out of Iraq or his razor thin majority will disappear.
On January 31 2015 16:31 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm gonna blow you up isn't a funny joke anyways. Teenagers wanna show how cool they are they can sit in a cell. It will be a good lesson
It's not unheard of to tell a teenager to go to their room, but don't forget that when the state is doing it, it costs taxpayers money to incarcerate someone. So don't forget to consider if that lesson is really proportionate and worth it.
On January 31 2015 16:31 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm gonna blow you up isn't a funny joke anyways. Teenagers wanna show how cool they are they can sit in a cell. It will be a good lesson
Absolutely unacceptable. It does nothing to protect anyone, and only serves to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust in our government and police forces. Putting a teenager in a cell because he posts "ima blow up a school" on facebook doesn't stop extremists from coming over and blowing us up. They're not going to tell us beforehand. It was illegal before these crimes occurred and that didn't stop them. But then again, these laws wouldn't have because they weren't even linked to terrorist organizations to begin with, so they would have been looking in the wrong place.
Please learn about everything else that's included with this bill before you support it. It's got loads of clauses that violate our rights as Canadian citizens, and removes much of the liability enforcement agencies have when performing their duties.
On January 31 2015 16:31 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm gonna blow you up isn't a funny joke anyways. Teenagers wanna show how cool they are they can sit in a cell. It will be a good lesson
Absolutely unacceptable. It does nothing to protect anyone, and only serves to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust in our government and police forces. Putting a teenager in a cell because he posts "ima blow up a school" on facebook doesn't stop extremists from coming over and blowing us up. They're not going to tell us beforehand. It was illegal before these crimes occurred and that didn't stop them. But then again, these laws wouldn't have because they weren't even linked to terrorist organizations to begin with, so they would have been looking in the wrong place.
Please learn about everything else that's included with this bill before you support it. It's got loads of clauses that violate our rights as Canadian citizens, and removes much of the liability enforcement agencies have when performing their duties.
well said. threatening to blow someone up is a still crime. its assault. just leave it as that.
i don't want it to be easy for law enforcement to turn a simple physical threat into a terror act that is a national security threat. its neither of those things.
over all, crime is going down. law enforcement agencies don't need things like this new anti-terror legislation.
living 2 blocks away from oppenheimer park I can say I don't feel threatened by the homeless it's more a problem of poverty/drug abuse then a problem of criminality