Harper says Islamicism biggest threat to Canada

[CHIMO]

Source: CBC News

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 is Islamic terrorism.

Harper said his government will bring back anti-terrorism clauses that were brought in in 2001 but were sunset in 2007 amid heated political debate.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html

---

Sep 6, 2011 10:09 PM ET

"Fear, Inc." Exposes the So-Called Experts and Donors Behind Islamophobia in the United States
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/6/fear_inc_exposes_the_so_called

[stuball111]

1. Harper HA!

The biggest danger to Canada is Harper!

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. Harper is one of many self-styled leaders that must really, really miss the USSR as bogeyman

Sure, they're all doing their best to make this "terror" bu$ine$$ a suitable distraction from bu$ine$$ as usual and the wretched manner in which the "free world" is ruled (and the abominable results that naturally follow), but it's really all unraveling.

[teddy51]

3. And the Harper Gov't. has absolutely nothing to stop their aggression!

NDP Leader Jack Layton is no longer here to call Harper on anything that he decides to do (Politically) so he has free rein. The Liberals were decimated in the last election.... Not looking good for Canada!

[polly7]

4. He should be DNA tested. Maybe Dubya had a brother Babs gave up.

You never know .... they're so much alike, it's scary.

[chollybocker]

13. Aha! The fetus on the mantle at the Bush house.

You may be on to something.... :)

[polly7]

15. Hmmm ............

:wow:

Edited for something really bad. Slapping myself right now for it.

[iverglas]

17. there's actually a huge difference

Harper is smart; very smart. Occasional public relations blunders, but not a blithering moron.

Also a micro-managing control freak.

So quite different from Bush the lesser really, and more dangerous in his own way. Just not as many armies to move around the globe. His targets are closer to home, and we'll start seeing how he plans to play it with his majority government in a couple of weeks.

[No Elephants]

51. Romney is Bush's distant cousin, and Obama is Cheney's.

They say karma's a bitch, but karma's got nutthin on geneaology.

[PSPS]

5. George W. Harper

[Kennah]

6. Al-Qaeda will now teach their recruits using song: Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

[pinboy3niner]

8. Harper killed Kenny!

:evilgrin:

[Kennah]

12. Oh my God! That bastard!

[alp227]

7. religion in general is a threat to society. Michele Bachmann, anyone? n/t

[EvilMonsanto]

9. Did everyone catch that?

What was said at the end?

[Turborama]

10. Thanks for the Fear Inc. link, downloading the whole show now. n/t

[Botany]

11. are you kidding me?

Poutine is the biggest threat.

[roamer65]

14. I can't believe Canadians gave the CONS a majority gov't again.

I guess Brian Mulroney wasn't enough.

[iverglas]

18. Brian Mulroney was not good, but not Harper

And you know we didn't give them a majority government ... we gave them 39.6% of the popular vote, which translated into a majority of seats in the house in the first-past-the-post multi-party system.

Conservative -- seats 167 (54.2%) -- popular vote 39.6%
NDP-New Democratic Party -- seats 102 (33.1%) -- popular vote 30.6%
Liberal -- seats 34 (11.0%) -- popular vote 18.9%
Bloc Québécois -- seats 4 (1.3%) -- popular vote 6.0%
Green Party -- seats 1 (0.3%) -- popular vote 3.9%

with an appalling 61.4% voter turnout

http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

[marasinghe]

16. says the man trying to divert attention ....

.... from a pipeline pushing tar sands across the North American continent; and, from drilling for oil under the Arctic icecap.

[AlwaysQuestion]

19. Oh, the fear I have of the Islamics.......

it's nothin short of terrifying. Why, night after night I lay awake worrying about the problem............What to do, what to do?

I'm assuming that most of the response has been from my compatriots; unfortunately, the P.M. is no compatriot of mine. Do believe his allegiance lies elsewhere. Hmmm, but come to think about it, I haven't heard him utter, "God Bless Canada" of late--or maybe that's cuz I generally manage to tune him out.

[socialshockwave]

20. He's right.

Radical Islam is a major threat. I mean - there are calls for Sharia law in Canada and other radical Muslims choosing not to obey our laws, performing honour killings, etc.

I'm sure you guys think I'm a racist or islamophobe for saying this, but I say this with half my family being Muslim. Radical Muslims are a threat. It's a shame more people don't realize that.

[Amonester]

22. "performing honour killings" is still called "murder" in Canada

and it will remain as such, whether the "honour killings" performers like it or not, they will still be judged as "murderers" (life sentence).

[AlwaysQuestion]

24. Right on!!!!!

You are sooooooo right and obviously beat me to the punch... :):)

[iverglas]

26. who ARE these "honour killings performers"??

Huh -- I was about to make this point myself and I find it already made in the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/honour-killings-in-canada-even-worse-than-we-believe/article1650228/

Gerald Caplan
Honour killings in Canada: even worse than we believe
Gerald Caplan
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jul. 23, 2010 5:56PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Nov. 15, 2010 2:22PM EST

If you are already sufficiently appalled knowing there’ve been 12 despicable “honour killings” in Canada since 2002, don’t read any further. This is only the tip of a nightmarish iceberg, I’m afraid. <the "honour killings" were apparently *not* all by Muslims>

For some reason, the term honour killings seems to be reserved for murders committed by male family members against daughters or sisters in South Asian or Middle Eastern communities. These unimaginable crimes have been receiving much high-profile notoriety in the Canadian media, as they surely deserve. All Canadians must now know of the tragic murder of 16-year old Aqsa Parvez of Mississauga, strangled to death three years ago by her brother and father.

But I’m confident that not one in a million is aware that in Ontario alone, from 2002 until only 2007 (the latest data), 212 women have been killed by their partners. That’s 42 every year, compared with 12 so-called honour killings in all of Canada in the past eight years. Women killed by partners are known as domestic homicides, and, unless especially gruesome, are barely worth a mention in the media. Maybe there's just too many of them to be newsworthy.

... both kinds of murders have a common root. Both are honour killings, reflecting a twisted, pathological male sense of honour. Both are executed by men who feel they haven’t received their due deference, men who consider “their” women, whether daughter or partner, to be their chattel, to do with as they choose. Have we smug white Canadians forgotten that you don’t have to be a Muslim or South Asian to regard women this way?

[pinboy3niner]

28. EXCELLENT point

Thanks for posting. :fistbump:

[Judi Lynn]

34. Thanks for sharing the post, iverglas. n/t

[AlwaysQuestion]

23. Yes, well you just go for it and spread the word; however,.......

our laws can take care of that nonsense; if not, then there's something wrong with our system of justice or of those running it.

This is all a load of crap--all manufactured to ensure that Canadians like Americans are brainwashed by the fear factor. Remember, people throughout the world are far more alike than they are different. It's countries' leaders who have an agenda which to see through to fruition mandates that they summon the great unwashed to arms. It's a travesty--really it is.

[iverglas]

25. no, I'll just say you're ... ignorant

there are calls for Sharia law in Canada and other radical Muslims choosing not to obey our laws, performing honour killings, etc.

On the subject of Shari'a you obviously don't have a clue. Did you know, for example, in the actual instance of Ontario, for example, that what Muslims were seeking was exactly what Jews and Roman Catholics had had forever? Private religious tribunals whose decisions on certain matters could be enforced in the courts. Yup, Jews and Roman Catholics could do it and the Muslims couldn't. I guess Jews and Roman Catholics gave their religious laws more insipid names.

Who are these "radical Muslims" choosing not to obey our laws?

Where are these plural "honour killings"?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Canada is not Europe. Canada does not have a large, excluded, disaffected young Muslim population. This does not preclude the possibility of some individual with a grievance engaging in some violent act, but your generalization is unfounded and indefensible.

[leftynyc]

37. Do you have a constitution?

Or anything that makes claim to a separation of church and state? If you do, you have nothing to worry about and calls for shariah law are meaningless. If you don't, shame on Canada.

[iverglas]

41. do you have google?

Good bleeding grief. The 1982 Constitution of Canada is the model for many constitutions adopted around the world since then.

Now, we don't "make claim to a separation of church and state".

Our constitution guarantees equal treatment for all regardless of sex, race, nationality, religion, etc. etc., including analogous characteristics like sexual orientation.

One thing this means is that when Muslims saw Jews and Roman Catholics operating parallel private legal systems to settle certain kinds of private disputes by the application of their religious "laws", with their decisions then enforceable in the courts, they wanted the same thing. Equality. It's a good thing. What there was, was inequality.

The solution adopted was to eliminate the provision for enforcing the decisions of Jewish and RC religious tribunals. Back to equality. All settled.

[leftynyc]

45. That's interesting but

in no way answers my question.

[iverglas]

46. which question was that?

This amazingly ignorant one:

Do you have a constitution?

or the one predicated on a totally US-centric view of the world:

Or anything that makes claim to a separation of church and state?

Do you actually need some help here?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/FullText.html

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

For any component of the state in Canada to grant any special treatment, or impose any prejudicial treatment, on any individual or group because of their religion would be a violation of the constitution.

That's why Ontario eliminated the legislative provision for decisions of the Jewish and RC religious "courts" to be enforced in the ordinary courts in the same way as arbitration awards may be. It granted special treatment to adherents to specific religions.

Equal treatment does not always mean same treatment, and we are sensitive to cultural differences here. But that does not extend to measures that violate constitutional equality rights. That is why, for instance:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/FullText.html

Divorce Act

Affidavit re removal of barriers to religious remarriage

21.1 (2) ... In any proceedings under this Act, a spouse (in this section referred to as the “deponent”) may serve on the other spouse and file with the court an affidavit indicating

(a) that the other spouse is the spouse of the deponent;

(b) the date and place of the marriage, and the official character of the person who solemnized the marriage;

(c) the nature of any barriers to the remarriage of the deponent within the deponent’s religion the removal of which is within the other spouse’s control;

(d) where there are any barriers to the remarriage of the other spouse within the other spouse’s religion the removal of which is within the deponent’s control, that the deponent

(i) has removed those barriers, and the date and circumstances of that removal, or

(ii) has signified a willingness to remove those barriers, and the date and circumstances of that signification;

(e) that the deponent has, in writing, requested the other spouse to remove all of the barriers to the remarriage of the deponent within the deponent’s religion the removal of which is within the other spouse’s control;

(f) the date of the request described in paragraph (e); and

(g) that the other spouse, despite the request described in paragraph (e), has failed to remove all of the barriers referred to in that paragraph.

Powers of court where barriers not removed

(3) Where a spouse who has been served with an affidavit under subsection (2) does not

(a) within fifteen days after that affidavit is filed with the court or within such longer period as the court allows, serve on the deponent and file with the court an affidavit indicating that all of the barriers referred to in paragraph (2)(e) have been removed, and

(b) satisfy the court, in any additional manner that the court may require, that all of the barriers referred to in paragraph (2)(e) have been removed,

the court may, subject to any terms that the court considers appropriate,

(c) dismiss any application filed by that spouse under this Act, and

(d) strike out any other pleadings and affidavits filed by that spouse under this Act. ...

What this means, in a nutshell, is that in the case of a Jewish couple, for instance, a husband who refuses to grant a get to free the wife to remarry by Jewish rules will be unable to obtain a divorce. Many jurisdictions, including in the US, have done this in order to relieve the women affected of the extreme prejudice they would otherwise suffer within their own communities.

Anyway, I don't really know what your question was or why the answer to whatever it was wasn't obvious.

"Separation of church and state" is an 18th century concept largely concerned with preventing the state from interfering in church affairs. We haven't had that problem here recently.

[Quantess]

38. Extremists, fundamentalists are always a potential threat!

Radical islamists, christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of any religion, whether christian or muslim (sorry but those are the 2 worst offenders in my view) are harmful to society. No need to apologize!

OTOH, I know muslims who are casual and easygoing and have a sense of humor, just as I know several christians who are the "live and let live" type. Needless to say, those aren't the ones we need to worry about.

[iverglas]

42. just for the info of the reading public

The actual real terrorism that has been experienced in Canada had nothing to do with either Christians or Muslims. It revolved around the domestic political situation in India and the exporting of that conflict outside India's borders: the Sikh independence movement.

For a quick rundown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

Air India Flight 182 was an Air India flight operating on the Montréal–London–Delhi route. On 23 June 1985, the airplane operating on the route — a Boeing 747-237B (c/n 21473/330, reg VT-EFO) named after Emperor Kanishka — was blown up by a bomb while in Irish airspace at an altitude of 31,000 feet (9,400 m), and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

A total of 329 people were killed, including 280 Canadians, 27 British citizens and 22 Indians.<1> The incident was the largest mass murder in modern Canadian history. It was the first bombing of a 747 jumbo jet, preceding the better-known 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, which was also brought down by explosives placed in a radio inside a bag without its passenger boarding. The explosion and downing occurred within an hour of the fatal Narita Airport bombing, which also originated from Canada. In this case, a bag exploded on the ground before being placed on another Air India flight. Evidence from the explosion pointed to an attempt to blow up two airliners simultaneously.

Investigation and prosecution lasting almost 20 years made this the most expensive trial in Canadian history, costing nearly CAD $130 million. Although some Sikh supporters blamed the bombing as a "false flag" effort by Indian intelligence to discredit their movement, Canadian law enforcement determined that the main suspects in the bombing were members of the Sikh militant group Babbar Khalsa and other related groups based in Canada. Though a handful of members were arrested and tried, Inderjit Singh Reyat was the only person convicted of involvement in the bombing, due to a lack of solid evidence and various legal and investigative errors. Singh pleaded guilty in 2003 to manslaughter and was sentenced to 15 years in prison for building the bombs that exploded at Narita and aboard Flight 182.<2>

The Governor General-in-Council in 2006 appointed former Supreme Court Justice John Major to conduct a commission of inquiry. His report was completed and released on 17 June 2010. It concluded that a "cascading series of errors" by the government of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had allowed the terrorist attack to take place.<3>

That's just the intro.

[SfromCanada]

50. What about radical Christians?

[Amonester]

21. Islamicism?? CBC??

From the article, "Islamicism" is not what that idiot from the minority of Canadians said...

Unless both "Islamicism" and "Islamic terrorism" mean the same thing.

Is the CBC looking for more cash in their next budget, or what? :shrug:

[DonCoquixote]

27. Seriously

Canadians, how the hell did you let this guy stay in power? This man is the best argument against a parliamentary system there is.

[iverglas]

29. uh

George W Bush?

I guess the parliamentary system is the worst one ever invented ... except for all the others.



15 words, 1 typo ...

[pinboy3niner]

30. Touche

:rofl:

[DonCoquixote]

32. Hey

at least W. is GONE. Harper is still around.

[Amonester]

31. The answer is quite simple, actually: the 'common-sense' vote

is divided between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

Now, as to why those two political entities can't figure out how to kind of 'merge' together to counter the stupids who destroy Canada inside and outside is beyond comprehension (for me anyway).

[DonCoquixote]

33. so in other words

The right wing up there has divided the left, much like they plan to do here. Sad to say, we will probably help them (as any reading of DU will show.)

[iverglas]

35. no, really, not

The right wing was divided between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and the NDP has made a good start on killing off the Liberal Party and getting down to business.

[AverageJoe90]

36. As dangerous as radical Islam can be.......

Harper doesn't seem to understand, or want to accept, that if anything, domestic terrorism is our biggest threat right now.

[iverglas]

40. what Harper actually doesn't understand

... although I'm sure he really does ... is that he is our biggest threat right now. ;)

The biggest threat to our economy, our livelihoods, our health care, our sovereignty, our equality rights ... stuff that actually matters, like.

[Quantess]

43. What iverglas said!

:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

44. ;)

I just want to add -- history has not ended. In so far as this past election was a big step toward eliminating the Liberal Party, it was a victory. This nonsense of allowing two right-wing parties to alternate in government (hmm, that may sound familiar to the neighbours) has to end.

I doubt that the Liberal Party will lie down and die in the current cycle, but we have four years to keep marginalizing it, and to present the public with the true picture and the real alternative. And we should not expect to be suddenly installing social democracy in four years, either.

And sometimes you have just have to endure the present and keep faith that human history is a story of progress, however slow it may seem on any given date. ;)

[CHIMO]

48. Dream On

It will not happen that way!

[iverglas]

49. you have a plan?

:eyes:

I don't think I really said anything will happen any way ...

[Vidar]

39. What utter horse shit! The biggest threat to Canada is clearly its insane,

overbearing, self-righteous southern neighbor.

[CHIMO]

47. At

A ratio of 8 to 1 you are not allowed to point this fact out!

The NAFTA accord and the upcoming alignment of borders is to just pass.

It is not only a threat to the present Canada, it will become a threat to a North American Empire.

So at the moment, it is just a matter of time.

[No Elephants]

52. What the heck is "Islamicism?" What kind of word is that?