Gun attack on Mosque in Canada.

[Scaff]

I like that someone can repeatedly refer to other news outlets as biased but defend a site like Breitbart without a hint of irony.

Oh come on now, its only been 15 hours since the police charged him, a story about how Thomas Aquines was really against open borders is far more important!

 

[Johnnypenso]

I like that someone can repeatedly refer to other news outlets as biased but defend a site like Breitbart without a hint of irony.

Who is doing that? I haven't defended anyone, just pointing out an inaccuracy in a claim made about one particular incident.

 

[Scaff]

Oh come on now, its only been 15 hours since the police charged him, a story about how Thomas Aquines was really against open borders is far more important!

And we pass a full day with Breitbart having not updated this story with information that everyone else is reporting. Readers of Breitbart are still being informed that which of the two suspects is now considered a witness and which one arrested is not known.

Anyone not taking an issue with this as a clear example of a story being buried because it doesn't suit the sources existing biases has, in my opinion, seriously undermined any creadability should they know about this and attempt to level the same accusation any other media outlet.

It's going to be interesting to follow this one and the coverage Breitbart give it.

Edited to add.

They have mentioned it, it didn't get a place on the front page and was buried as the tenth item on a search for Quebec on the site (below stories from two years ago) and manages to turn a terrorist attack by a person who seems to have been inspired by Marie LePenn and Trump into an ISIS are out to get us, nothing to see here piece.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...mosque-proves-muslims-victims-global-crusade/

 

[xyloscissor]

Anyone not taking an issue with this as a clear example of a story being buried because it doesn't suit the sources existing biases has, in my opinion, seriously undermined any creadability should they know about this and attempt to level the same accusation any other media outlet.

Or, we have no idea what you are talking about and don't care about yet another news agency that does not report news. It is hardly new is it?

Caugh caugh cnn and fox

 

[Scaff]

Or, we have no idea what you are talking about and don't care about yet another news agency that does not report news. It is hardly new is it?

Caugh caugh cnn and fox

You have no idea what I'm talking about?

Then just ask.

I've seen many claim that this happens, however you have to hit the moment right to be able to watch it in action. It's also a claim that is leveled mostly at the liberal media, yet in this instance we have a far right mainstream outlet (who are trying to own the identification of fake news) in the act of doing it.

I also find it interesting that many who have complained about this with regard to the liberal media seem oddly uninterested with this unfolding example.

 

[xyloscissor]

Then just ask.

That is my way of asking. I don't think it should matter about all the liberal or not stuff, news these days needs to be taken with a pound of salt.

So whatever the agenda might be there is no room for that really, until people stop supporting those things they will continue on.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Canada takes action against Fox News:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/quebec-mosque-shooting:-fox-news-deletes-tweet/8233210

They got Fox News to delete a Tweet about the suspect being of Moroccan origin despite police issuing their statement that he was no longer a suspect, and the network failing to correct to correct themselves.

 

[Scaff]

That is my way of asking. I don't think it should matter about all the liberal or not stuff, news these days needs to be taken with a pound of salt.

So whatever the agenda might be there is no room for that really, until people stop supporting those things they will continue on.

No you chose to speak as a collective group (you are not a 'we'), nor was it you asking.

Nor do I see your point in this post, i'm not supporting this reporting inaccuracy, I'm calling it out for what it is. Yet you seem to think it shouldn't be discussed or addressed? Two standpoints that are at odds wit each other.

 

[xyloscissor]

No you chose to speak as a collective group (you are not a 'we'), nor was it you asking.

Nor do I see your point in this post, i'm not supporting this reporting inaccuracy, I'm calling it out for what it is. Yet you seem to think it shouldn't be discussed or addressed? Two standpoints that are at odds wit each other.

Oh dear, this is just a misunderstanding. Sorry Scaff I didn't mean any of that at all. I still don't understand what you are reporting, is the agency covering up something? That is never good.

To me I simply want to know who did it and why, I don't care about any of the other stuff, news is sensational these days.

 

[Eh Team]

Oh dear, this is just a misunderstanding. Sorry Scaff I didn't mean any of that at all. I still don't understand what you are reporting, is the agency covering up something? That is never good.

To me I simply want to know who did it and why, I don't care about any of the other stuff, news is sensational these days.

Nothing is being covered up by Canadian authorities. Fox News among other news networks are leaving loose ends hanging around or trying to spin things entirely differently so to make it look like muslims were the violent ones.

How is that hard to understand?

As for who did it and why, that will come out when the investigation is over. You still seem highly impatient that you don't know what you seek to know. The police will do their work and report when finished, no cover ups like you seem to be so obsessed with.

 

[xyloscissor]

How is that hard to understand?

As for who did it and why, that will come out when the investigation is over. You still seem highly impatient that you don't know what you seek to know. The police will do their work and report when finished, no cover ups like you seem to be so obsessed with.

It's not hard to understand at all.

I'm not being impatient and I know it takes time to get the facts out and get them out correctly. I also know what a spin doctor is.

 

[Biggles]

It's not hard to understand at all.

I'm not being impatient and I know it takes time to get the facts out and get them out correctly. I also know what a spin doctor is.

In Canada, the emphasis is put on the "application of justice" before the "public's right to know".

It is to be expected, in a case like this, that the details would take some time to emerge.

 

[xyloscissor]

In Canada, the emphasis is put on the "application of justice" before the "public's right to know".

That is interesting coming from you, I kind of like the idea but it requires accepting the laws you have and trusting your leaders.

What I don't like is all the sensations and putting people on trial in the general public's eye which is something we do here. First off I wish there wasn't even a perp to discuss in this case but unfortunately there is, I have no preconceived notions or desires for him to be this or that. I know some do but I don't.

It is important to me to know why something is done so the root cause can be addressed, you see it's not good enough for me to punish crime or prevent it by force, I look for solutions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In Canada, the emphasis is put on the "application of justice" before the "public's right to know".

It is to be expected, in a case like this, that the details would take some time to emerge.

Interesting then that the event was characterized as "terrorism" by the PM and Quebec officials within hours, and yet no terrorism charges have been filed, only murder charges. I guess the application of justice includes leaping to unfounded conclusions before all the facts are in, potentially prejudicing the case?

 

[Biggles]

Interesting then that the event was characterized as "terrorism" by the PM and Quebec officials within hours, and yet no terrorism charges have been filed, only murder charges. I guess the application of justice includes leaping to unfounded conclusions before all the facts are in, potentially prejudicing the case?

That's a good point.

 

[Eh Team]

Interesting then that the event was characterized as "terrorism" by the PM and Quebec officials within hours, and yet no terrorism charges have been filed, only murder charges. I guess the application of justice includes leaping to unfounded conclusions before all the facts are in, potentially prejudicing the case?

I'm no law expert, but I do think the accused should be charged with terrorism charges or a similar set of charges as Dylann Roof. The events look very similar but the motive could be different, we don't know if he was trying to scare away/get rid of the muslim community or do as Roof did and attempt to start a race war. Either way if he only receives murder charges I do not think that fits the situation, but again I am no expert on such matters.

 

[Scaff]

That's a good point.

It's a good point, I take it that charges can be added as an investigation proceeds in Canadian law?

Should evidence lead in that direction of course.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm no law expert, but I do think the accused should be charged with terrorism charges or a similar set of charges as Dylann Roof. The events look very similar but the motive could be different, we don't know if he was trying to scare away/get rid of the muslim community or do as Roof did and attempt to start a race war. Either way if he only receives murder charges I do not think that fits the situation, but again I am no expert on such matters.

From what I've read, it's usually the case in Canadian law that someone must be connected with a terrorist group or network in order for terrorism charges to be applied. They also have to establish an intent to terrorize to be successful, which can be difficult, depending on the available evidence of course. Unless they can connect him with a group and establish intent, it's usually characterized as murder, even if the end result was the terrorizing of a specific group.

 

[TenEightyOne]

From what I've read, it's usually the case in Canadian law that someone must be connected with a terrorist group or network in order for terrorism charges to be applied.

Nope, their definition is very similar to the Crown definition (perhaps unsuprisingly). It is an act of violence "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating 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".

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

Surely we're not trying to say this wasn't a terrorist act?

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

I'm no law expert, but I do think the accused should be charged with terrorism charges or a similar set of charges as Dylann Roof. The events look very similar but the motive could be different, we don't know if he was trying to scare away/get rid of the muslim community or do as Roof did and attempt to start a race war. Either way if he only receives murder charges I do not think that fits the situation, but again I am no expert on such matters.

I strongly disagree with the terrorism charges, as they just don't fit the crime in this situation. It may fit into the hate crime definition a bit more closely... but terrorism? No, just no. The only possible reason for even mentioning it might be to conduct an investigation with less scrutiny.

Just my opinion with the information at hand...

Cheers

 

[Johnnypenso]

Nope, their definition is very similar to the Crown definition (perhaps unsuprisingly). It is an act of violence "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating 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".

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

Surely we're not trying to say this wasn't a terrorist act?

Yep, I'm not talking about a textbook definition, I'm talking about actual application of the law.

Bissonnette also appears to have acted alone, which can disqualify him from most terrorism offences, said Kent Roach, a University of Toronto law professor and expert in anti-terrorism law.

Terrorism charges are mainly designed to be preventive and apply to groups, Roach said.

“A truly lone wolf attack cannot result in most terrorism offences which require participation or support of a group or commission of an offence for a group,” he wrote in an email response on Tuesday.

Source

 

[xyloscissor]

In the U.S. 'terrorism' can be added to charges as a form of leverage, people can be intimidated by facing such stiff penalty they will plea bargain down to a lesser charge and not get their day in court. Hopefully Canada does not practice that.

 

[Biggles]

It's a good point, I take it that charges can be added as an investigation proceeds in Canadian law?

Should evidence lead in that direction of course.

In fairness, the nature of the event means it's pretty much impossible for the PM not to comment on it.

 

[huskeR32]

I strongly disagree with the terrorism charges, as they just don't fit the crime in this situation. It may fit into the hate crime definition a bit more closely... but terrorism? No, just no.

In what ways does this case not constitute terrorism?

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

In what ways does this case not constitute terrorism?

In all honesty, I see absolutely no indications of it here... as with previously mentioned points above, there's no affiliations with "terrorist" groups or even ideology. Lone wolf factors in as well. Prejudice may be a factor in play here, but terrorism?

Why would you think it to be terrorism and NOT a hate crime?

Cheers

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yep, I'm not talking about a textbook definition, I'm talking about actual application of the law.

That is the text in law, not in a textbook. Your own source makes it clear that terrorism charges could well be brought in this case by pointing out that not all applications of the definition require group participation or affiliation.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That is the text in law, not in a textbook. Your own source makes it clear that terrorism charges could well be brought in this case by pointing out that not all applications of the definition require group participation or affiliation.

Which is why I said depending on the evidence and any connections that he may have. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[huskeR32]

In all honesty, I see absolutely no indications of it here... as with previously mentioned points above, there's no affiliations with "terrorist" groups or even ideology. Lone wolf factors in as well. Prejudice may be a factor in play here, but terrorism?

Why would you think it to be terrorism and NOT a hate crime?

Cheers

I personally don't think the lack of group affiliation is all that relevant. And as TenEightyOne and Johnnypenso's exchange above demonstrates, whether or not group affiliation disqualifies it under the Canadian legal definition is a bit ambiguous as well.

Setting that aside, it certainly feels like terrorism; given current world events, it's hard to argue that this wasn't intended to scare Muslims, or that it is completely apolitical in nature.

I'm sure we'll get a clearer picture one way or the other pretty soon, but those are my thoughts at first blush.

 

[Joel]

Interesting then that the event was characterized as "terrorism" by the PM and Quebec officials within hours, and yet no terrorism charges have been filed, only murder charges. I guess the application of justice includes leaping to unfounded conclusions before all the facts are in, potentially prejudicing the case?

To me it seems more like one of those things where the common usage of a word is different from the legal term. Like how people use the word assault when the legal term is battery.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To me it seems more like one of those things where the common usage of a word is different from the legal term. Like how people use the word assault when the legal term is battery.

To me it seems like the leader of your country should have more common sense than to comment on the possible motives of the shooter before there is any evidence one way or the other. It could have been a personal beef with someone there, an ex-lover, a mental break, settling an old score, organized crime or any other number of reasons. If the roles were reversed, and the shooter was a Muslim attacking Christian parishoners, I don't think he would have been so quick to conclude terrorism, and if he did, it would still be wrong in either case.