Wednesday, September 21, 2005
October Crisis Part 2
"The October Crisis was a big deal in Canada, a historical turning point in ways that probably aren't even fully understood by Canadians yet. Internationally, the events of October 1970 in Quebec have largely been forgotten. This is, I think, for two reasons."
I really don't know what Skipster is talking about here in reference to the ways that Canadians don't understand the historical significance of the October Crisis. I think that Canadians understand very well what the October Crisis was all about and how it has effected our society. That the October Crisis has been forgotten internationally isn't surprising. Which Canadian political issue or event from 35 years ago has not been forgotten internationally aside from the Quebec referendums?
"Firstly, given the radicalism of that era, the October Crisis wasn't particularly heinous. When all is said and done, one person was murdered, another kidnapped and a group of radicals threatened the government of Canada and made a series of silly demands."
This is a surprisingly short-sighted point of view. As I pointed out in my earlier post the FLQ committed over 200 bombings, several bank robberies, and even some murders in Quebec prior to the kidnappings of Laporte and Cross and the murder of Laporte. To not take this into consideration when analyzing the October Crisis is to remove the Crisis from its historical context. Any analysis of an historical event that does not take the event's historical context into consideration is irresponsible at best and useless at worst. I would also like to point out that Skippy talks about the October Crisis in as "a historical turning point" in one paragraph and then seems to trivializes it as not "particularly heinous" in the next. So is it a big deal or not? The attempt to ascribe some sort of context with the "given the radicalism of that era" comment actually backfires. "When all is said and done" the FLQ were probably the most violent and dangerous terrorist organization in North American in the last 50 years with the exception perhaps of the KKK. Skippy makes a comparison between the October Crisis and the Munich Olympics massacre. A bunch of Jews got slaughtered in Germany. Shocking isn't it? The Munich event took place over 1 day. There was no ongoing threat in Germany once the event was over. Hardly comparable to 8 years of bombings and bank robberies. I really don't understand what his point here is.
"At no time did the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) demonstrate the potential for mayhem of say, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. As a matter of fact, the FLQ didn't pose the threat to social order that the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Black Panthers did in the United States."
It's interesting that Skippy brings up the PLO, because as I'm sure he knows that a few members of the FLQ actually went to go train with the PLO. So the FLQ was not as big or as powerful as the PLO. So what? This is hardly an argument against the WMA. The situation in Israel was much different than the situation in Canada was. What the connection is I really don't understand. How does a comparison between the FLQ and the PLO contribute to a discussion of the enactment of the WMA?
As far as the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army go, the FLQ committed way more bombings and bank robberies than both of them put together. Neither organization kidnapped and started executing members of the government. The SLA were nothing but a few criminals and their friends. The only thing of note they ever did was kidnap Patty Hearst. The only killed a couple of people, and really weren't a threat to any sort of government organisation. The Weather Underground didn't commit even half the number of bombings that the FLQ did and I think killed more of their own member in accidents while trying to build bombs than they killed other people. I don't know that either organization had thousands of people showing up at rallies to proclaim their support.
"According to RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon, there were thousands of small-scale domestic terrorist events in 1970, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties."
First off I'd like to point out to my dear friend Skippy that outside of yourself and a few of the wackos down at Republican Party Headquarters no one thinks that quoting Richard Nixon is really going to help any argument outside arguing that he was a total fuckwad. He was a liar and crook. Second, this is a highly subjective statement. How exactly is Nixon defining terrorist "events". For all I know Nixon is referring to peace protests as "terrorist events".
"Which leads me to the second reason that I believe that the world outside of Canada has chosen to forget the October Crisis: embarrassment. In the Sixties and Seventies, almost all of the western democracies faced significant terrorist (mostly Marxist) movements within their borders. Only one responded by suspending the constitutional guarantees for all of its citizens."
There has been no effort to purposely forget the October Crisis, and I don't think anyone is embarrassed by it. The political leaders of the time have been quite willing to talk publicly at length about it. Trudeau certainly never showed any embarrassment or regret for what he did. The last comment in the above statement is just not true. Great Britain had a little trouble in the 1970's with a little organization called the IRA. Perhaps you've hear of them. The British government enacted their "Emergency Powers Act" act in 1974 which gave the government/police extra powers which suspended many civil liberties, (right across the nation).
"Canada responded to the FLQ threat (which even Dr. Reverend admits was pretty tepid in retrospect) by invoking the War Measures Act of 1914."
At no time did I call the invoking of the WMA "tepid". I don't even think that adjective applies to the WMA.
"My American readers really should read the WMA, especially in the context of the USAPATRIOT Act. If, as the President suggests - and most Americans agree - you are in a state of "war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended," you should know just how out of control government can get."
How "out of control" did the Canadian government get? What extreme things did they do? The American government gets totally out of control without legislation. A great example of that would be COINTELPRO. Go look it up and you'll see what a great democracy America is.
"As the good Doctor points out, the government of Pierre Trudeau invoked the WMA at the request of Montreal mayor Claude Ryan and Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa. This is immaterial. In fact, Trudeau himself - as he stated in his televised Memoirs was ambivalent about invoking the WMA and did so only after forcing Ryan and Bourassa to request it. This was a massive dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. Rarely do Prime Ministers seek the request of local officials for federal action of any kind. We are not that kind of country. Furthermore, there is nothing in British or Canadian constitutional history that suggests that the cities even have a right to exist. Essentially, Trudeau did what he knew to be wrong and used the most directly affected officials to give him political cover. And it was done at the expense of the civil liberties of Canadians from coast to coast."
This has to be one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I've ever read at Skippy's blog. First off Claude Ryan never was the mayor of Montreal. Second of all, the requests made to the Prime Minister from the mayor of Canada's largest city, and the government of Quebec are "immaterial", well I just don't know what planet you're living on. Can you imagine the President of the USA ignoring requests from the mayor of Los Angles and the Governor of California after a terrorist organization had kidnapped foreign diplomats and a member of the California legislator? Trudeau was enthusiastic about using the WMA and requested the premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal make their requests for his government to invoke it in writing. What's wrong with that? He didn't put a gun to their heads and force them to do it. If I was in his shoes I probably would have asked them for the same thing. Hell, it was their idea to request it verbally from the federal governments in the first place, so why not put it in writing? How is this a "dereliction of duty"? It's true that it is rare for Prime Ministers to ask for formal request from municipal or provincial authorities, but who cares? It's rare that legislation like the WMA is used. What difference does it make whether cities have a right to exist according to British or Canadian constitutional history? We're not talking about constitutional history, we're talking about Canada in 1970, and there is no ethical or legal standard preventing Trudeau from asking for a request for help in writing, no matter who the request is coming from. It was Bourassa that suggested to Trudeau that the WMA should be used, not the other way around. You have taken up a separatist argument this his factually wrong. You make it sound as if Trudeau forced the WMA on the Quebec authorities. That is untrue, and in fact the reverse of what happened.
What would have happened if Trudeau refused. Bourassa would have gone public saying I asked the Feds for help and they refused, and Trudeau would have been crucified in Quebec as a result. He only did what any smart politician did. Bourassa was using Trudeau for political cover if you ask me. He knew that Trudeau couldn't refuse him the help he requested for long without looking as if he was neglecting the interests and safety of Quebecers.
"Yes, the WMA was the only existing legislation applicable to the circumstances in Montreal. He developed this argument shortly after I pointed out that the FLQ was active in area of only about five square blocks of Montreal. And he was right, it was. However, the October Crisis occurred - as one would suppose - in October. As it happens, Parliament sits in October and could easily have passed an emergency resolution localizing the scope of the response. One would think that something along those lines would have happened during a natural disaster."
"the FLQ was active in area of only about five square blocks of Montreal" - This totally untrue. FLQ members had been arrested at various locations in Quebec, and when those who killed Laporte were found, it wasn't in Montreal. So, Skippy suggests the government passes some piece of legislation localizing the "response" (whatever that means, but lets assume it means suspending some civil liberties). Localize it to what? Montreal? Well, we know the FLQ were active outside of Montreal, so it would have had to have been localized to Quebec. This has got to be the most ludicrous suggestion I've ever heard. This would have been a sure fire way for Trudeau to destroy himself in Quebec and galvanize the separatist movement as no other action by the Federal government ever had. Canada had a group of people who felt alienated from the larger Canadian society. A terrorist organization along with several other non-violent small political parties grow out of this alienation. I suppose that subjecting them to a suspension of civil liberties not applied in the rest of the nation would have somehow lessened their alienation. As well, what would have stopped the FQL from driving their hostages a few hours away to Ontario? Besides there were threats on official made by FLQ sympathizers as far away as Vancouver. What Skippy suggests is impractical and essentially would have meant political suicide for Trudeau in Quebec.
"Of course, this brings me back to my current disagreement with the good Doctor. When I advocated the lifting of constitutional guarantees in Louisiana, I did so in a case where nature had literally broken the back of civil government. For all of last week, there was absolutely no government in the Parish of New Orleans and we all saw the consequences of that."
Ahhh, the rub of the matter. Yes, the civil government was obliterated in New Orleans. Our dear friend Skippy would have you believe that it was because of the hurricane. This is untrue. It is because the government did not prepare for the disaster properly, and did not act accordingly after the storm had passed. Everybody knew that this was going to be a huge disaster. What steps were taken to ensure that some sort of authority would continue to exercise power in the aftermath? The problem wasn't the storm, but the governments monumental failure to act appropriately. So if the government fails the answer is to give them more power. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. This was a self created situation, unlike he October Crisis. Skippy states "What happened in Quebec in October 1970 couldn't have been more different." Yeah, that's my point.
"The fact that there still WERE governments in Montreal and Quebec City to request the War Measures Act is telling enough."
This is a completely meaningless statement.
Anyways, that’s about all I have to say. No one has ever presented a practical alternative solution to the October Crisis. Quebecers didn't seem that put out by it. Hell they voted in larger numbers for Trudeau after October 1970, than they did before. Those who criticize Trudeau for what he did are either separatists, or just people who hate Trudeau and criticize everything he did. I'm not saying that the WMA was the government's only option, but as far as I know no one has come up with a better one. Skippy' solution of some sort of localized "response" would have been a political disaster, and would have pushed Quebec even further towards separation. If you believe otherwise then you just don't know much about Canadian society, or you're just foolish.
I really don't know what Skipster is talking about here in reference to the ways that Canadians don't understand the historical significance of the October Crisis. I think that Canadians understand very well what the October Crisis was all about and how it has effected our society. That the October Crisis has been forgotten internationally isn't surprising. Which Canadian political issue or event from 35 years ago has not been forgotten internationally aside from the Quebec referendums?
"Firstly, given the radicalism of that era, the October Crisis wasn't particularly heinous. When all is said and done, one person was murdered, another kidnapped and a group of radicals threatened the government of Canada and made a series of silly demands."
This is a surprisingly short-sighted point of view. As I pointed out in my earlier post the FLQ committed over 200 bombings, several bank robberies, and even some murders in Quebec prior to the kidnappings of Laporte and Cross and the murder of Laporte. To not take this into consideration when analyzing the October Crisis is to remove the Crisis from its historical context. Any analysis of an historical event that does not take the event's historical context into consideration is irresponsible at best and useless at worst. I would also like to point out that Skippy talks about the October Crisis in as "a historical turning point" in one paragraph and then seems to trivializes it as not "particularly heinous" in the next. So is it a big deal or not? The attempt to ascribe some sort of context with the "given the radicalism of that era" comment actually backfires. "When all is said and done" the FLQ were probably the most violent and dangerous terrorist organization in North American in the last 50 years with the exception perhaps of the KKK. Skippy makes a comparison between the October Crisis and the Munich Olympics massacre. A bunch of Jews got slaughtered in Germany. Shocking isn't it? The Munich event took place over 1 day. There was no ongoing threat in Germany once the event was over. Hardly comparable to 8 years of bombings and bank robberies. I really don't understand what his point here is.
"At no time did the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) demonstrate the potential for mayhem of say, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. As a matter of fact, the FLQ didn't pose the threat to social order that the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Black Panthers did in the United States."
It's interesting that Skippy brings up the PLO, because as I'm sure he knows that a few members of the FLQ actually went to go train with the PLO. So the FLQ was not as big or as powerful as the PLO. So what? This is hardly an argument against the WMA. The situation in Israel was much different than the situation in Canada was. What the connection is I really don't understand. How does a comparison between the FLQ and the PLO contribute to a discussion of the enactment of the WMA?
As far as the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army go, the FLQ committed way more bombings and bank robberies than both of them put together. Neither organization kidnapped and started executing members of the government. The SLA were nothing but a few criminals and their friends. The only thing of note they ever did was kidnap Patty Hearst. The only killed a couple of people, and really weren't a threat to any sort of government organisation. The Weather Underground didn't commit even half the number of bombings that the FLQ did and I think killed more of their own member in accidents while trying to build bombs than they killed other people. I don't know that either organization had thousands of people showing up at rallies to proclaim their support.
"According to RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon, there were thousands of small-scale domestic terrorist events in 1970, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties."
First off I'd like to point out to my dear friend Skippy that outside of yourself and a few of the wackos down at Republican Party Headquarters no one thinks that quoting Richard Nixon is really going to help any argument outside arguing that he was a total fuckwad. He was a liar and crook. Second, this is a highly subjective statement. How exactly is Nixon defining terrorist "events". For all I know Nixon is referring to peace protests as "terrorist events".
"Which leads me to the second reason that I believe that the world outside of Canada has chosen to forget the October Crisis: embarrassment. In the Sixties and Seventies, almost all of the western democracies faced significant terrorist (mostly Marxist) movements within their borders. Only one responded by suspending the constitutional guarantees for all of its citizens."
There has been no effort to purposely forget the October Crisis, and I don't think anyone is embarrassed by it. The political leaders of the time have been quite willing to talk publicly at length about it. Trudeau certainly never showed any embarrassment or regret for what he did. The last comment in the above statement is just not true. Great Britain had a little trouble in the 1970's with a little organization called the IRA. Perhaps you've hear of them. The British government enacted their "Emergency Powers Act" act in 1974 which gave the government/police extra powers which suspended many civil liberties, (right across the nation).
"Canada responded to the FLQ threat (which even Dr. Reverend admits was pretty tepid in retrospect) by invoking the War Measures Act of 1914."
At no time did I call the invoking of the WMA "tepid". I don't even think that adjective applies to the WMA.
"My American readers really should read the WMA, especially in the context of the USAPATRIOT Act. If, as the President suggests - and most Americans agree - you are in a state of "war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended," you should know just how out of control government can get."
How "out of control" did the Canadian government get? What extreme things did they do? The American government gets totally out of control without legislation. A great example of that would be COINTELPRO. Go look it up and you'll see what a great democracy America is.
"As the good Doctor points out, the government of Pierre Trudeau invoked the WMA at the request of Montreal mayor Claude Ryan and Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa. This is immaterial. In fact, Trudeau himself - as he stated in his televised Memoirs was ambivalent about invoking the WMA and did so only after forcing Ryan and Bourassa to request it. This was a massive dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. Rarely do Prime Ministers seek the request of local officials for federal action of any kind. We are not that kind of country. Furthermore, there is nothing in British or Canadian constitutional history that suggests that the cities even have a right to exist. Essentially, Trudeau did what he knew to be wrong and used the most directly affected officials to give him political cover. And it was done at the expense of the civil liberties of Canadians from coast to coast."
This has to be one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I've ever read at Skippy's blog. First off Claude Ryan never was the mayor of Montreal. Second of all, the requests made to the Prime Minister from the mayor of Canada's largest city, and the government of Quebec are "immaterial", well I just don't know what planet you're living on. Can you imagine the President of the USA ignoring requests from the mayor of Los Angles and the Governor of California after a terrorist organization had kidnapped foreign diplomats and a member of the California legislator? Trudeau was enthusiastic about using the WMA and requested the premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal make their requests for his government to invoke it in writing. What's wrong with that? He didn't put a gun to their heads and force them to do it. If I was in his shoes I probably would have asked them for the same thing. Hell, it was their idea to request it verbally from the federal governments in the first place, so why not put it in writing? How is this a "dereliction of duty"? It's true that it is rare for Prime Ministers to ask for formal request from municipal or provincial authorities, but who cares? It's rare that legislation like the WMA is used. What difference does it make whether cities have a right to exist according to British or Canadian constitutional history? We're not talking about constitutional history, we're talking about Canada in 1970, and there is no ethical or legal standard preventing Trudeau from asking for a request for help in writing, no matter who the request is coming from. It was Bourassa that suggested to Trudeau that the WMA should be used, not the other way around. You have taken up a separatist argument this his factually wrong. You make it sound as if Trudeau forced the WMA on the Quebec authorities. That is untrue, and in fact the reverse of what happened.
What would have happened if Trudeau refused. Bourassa would have gone public saying I asked the Feds for help and they refused, and Trudeau would have been crucified in Quebec as a result. He only did what any smart politician did. Bourassa was using Trudeau for political cover if you ask me. He knew that Trudeau couldn't refuse him the help he requested for long without looking as if he was neglecting the interests and safety of Quebecers.
"Yes, the WMA was the only existing legislation applicable to the circumstances in Montreal. He developed this argument shortly after I pointed out that the FLQ was active in area of only about five square blocks of Montreal. And he was right, it was. However, the October Crisis occurred - as one would suppose - in October. As it happens, Parliament sits in October and could easily have passed an emergency resolution localizing the scope of the response. One would think that something along those lines would have happened during a natural disaster."
"the FLQ was active in area of only about five square blocks of Montreal" - This totally untrue. FLQ members had been arrested at various locations in Quebec, and when those who killed Laporte were found, it wasn't in Montreal. So, Skippy suggests the government passes some piece of legislation localizing the "response" (whatever that means, but lets assume it means suspending some civil liberties). Localize it to what? Montreal? Well, we know the FLQ were active outside of Montreal, so it would have had to have been localized to Quebec. This has got to be the most ludicrous suggestion I've ever heard. This would have been a sure fire way for Trudeau to destroy himself in Quebec and galvanize the separatist movement as no other action by the Federal government ever had. Canada had a group of people who felt alienated from the larger Canadian society. A terrorist organization along with several other non-violent small political parties grow out of this alienation. I suppose that subjecting them to a suspension of civil liberties not applied in the rest of the nation would have somehow lessened their alienation. As well, what would have stopped the FQL from driving their hostages a few hours away to Ontario? Besides there were threats on official made by FLQ sympathizers as far away as Vancouver. What Skippy suggests is impractical and essentially would have meant political suicide for Trudeau in Quebec.
"Of course, this brings me back to my current disagreement with the good Doctor. When I advocated the lifting of constitutional guarantees in Louisiana, I did so in a case where nature had literally broken the back of civil government. For all of last week, there was absolutely no government in the Parish of New Orleans and we all saw the consequences of that."
Ahhh, the rub of the matter. Yes, the civil government was obliterated in New Orleans. Our dear friend Skippy would have you believe that it was because of the hurricane. This is untrue. It is because the government did not prepare for the disaster properly, and did not act accordingly after the storm had passed. Everybody knew that this was going to be a huge disaster. What steps were taken to ensure that some sort of authority would continue to exercise power in the aftermath? The problem wasn't the storm, but the governments monumental failure to act appropriately. So if the government fails the answer is to give them more power. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. This was a self created situation, unlike he October Crisis. Skippy states "What happened in Quebec in October 1970 couldn't have been more different." Yeah, that's my point.
"The fact that there still WERE governments in Montreal and Quebec City to request the War Measures Act is telling enough."
This is a completely meaningless statement.
Anyways, that’s about all I have to say. No one has ever presented a practical alternative solution to the October Crisis. Quebecers didn't seem that put out by it. Hell they voted in larger numbers for Trudeau after October 1970, than they did before. Those who criticize Trudeau for what he did are either separatists, or just people who hate Trudeau and criticize everything he did. I'm not saying that the WMA was the government's only option, but as far as I know no one has come up with a better one. Skippy' solution of some sort of localized "response" would have been a political disaster, and would have pushed Quebec even further towards separation. If you believe otherwise then you just don't know much about Canadian society, or you're just foolish.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Fucking Idiots
There are a lot of fucking idiots on the internet. I've never met anyone who disagreed with that statement. For the most part they are easy to ignore and should be ignored. I mean, why waste your time and effort on an idiot, and frankly I feel sorry for most of them? But then there are the grand-mal idiots; people so emensely stupid it's actually fun to waste a little time on them. If there was any chance of helping these people, I'd be all for it, but in the cases where there isn't, well I feel it's ok to ridcule them in the hopes of entertaining a few other people.
Before I begin, I'd just like to point out that the American pledge of allegence was written by a socialist Francis Bellamy and that the word "God" wasn't added until 1954, more than 50 years after it was written
Well, here goes.
"It is difficult to describe just how much this bothers me, on many different levels. First, I cannot believe the audacity of today's federal judiciary."
Well, that doesn't see so difficult. You're pissed with the federal judiciary. Why is that difficult to describe?
"I do not think I am exaggerating in the least when I say that these activist judges are destroying our country."
Yes, America has always been threatened by the invasion of the judges! And not foreign judges either. If you examine American history closely you'll see many of the tragedies were perpetrated by "activist judges". Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilks Booth, Tim McVeigh , Mohamed Atta, Hurricane Katrina; all judges, (McVeigh sat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals).
"Nothing in our modern society has as much effect on our collective daily lives as this kind of shit."
Absolutely nothing. Not the price fixing by the oil industry that fucks the economy up, not the pointless wars the president starts, not the poisoning of the environment by the plutocracy and their ever so holy corporations. Absolutely nothing.
"Not drugs, alcohol, gambling ... nothing. A drunk driver can kill someone, and it affects a few people. A judge makes a decision like this, and it affects every citizen of the US. I don't understand how this can be anything but a long-term liberal conspiracy."
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they're right and forcing citizens to publicly declare their allegiance to their nation is unconstitutional? Why does it have to be a "conspiracy". When you say such things without backing them up with proof you sound like a screw-ball. Besides, what kinds of countries force their citizens to do those sorts of thing in? Didn't the Nazi's do that? Next you'll be advocating some sort of youth organization named after the president that all children will be required to join.
"Decisions like this one are microscopic baby steps toward a feudal society. It is happening slowly but inexorably. They are wearing us down. It won't be long before we are all nothing but peasants under the monarch government."
Huh? Feudal? Are you sure you know what that word means? Do you know that "monarchy" and "feudalism" aren't the same thing? So the liberal conspiracy is to create a medieval economic system in America? Do you know how crazy you sound?
"We will only be allowed to worship the governments god (which is NO god at all) while we abide on government property. But the government is slowly usurping all the private property and property rights. So after a while, everything will be government property. I see it coming. It will probably start in some government run housing project. Praying in government funded housing will be outlawed. Then the DMV will come along and ban all the sickeningly cute little "WWJD" bumper stickers as inciteful. How can we expect some poor atheist stuck in a traffic jam to put up with having God crammed down his throat from the bumper of the car ahead of him? Isn't it traveling on a government highway? Isn't that bumper sticker a form of evangelistic? It must stop! Of course the atheist will have no recourse but to blow his top with road rage and kill the evil Christian mini-van driving soccermom. Then the case can go to court, be appealed repeatedly until they find some activist judge to agree that no religious symbols of any kind can be allowed on government property, including highways. Separation of church and state, ya know?"
Whatever you do, don't overstate the situation. I thought it was the federal judges that were the problem, now it's the "government". Or are they the same thing? Is it the courts that are "usurping all private property"? Are you going to come home one day to find Clarence Thomas wearing your bathrobe, eating your Fritos and dry humping your dog because he's usurped your home? I would like to point out that if the government did ban the worship of God in all public places it would be in absolute accordance with the instructions of Jesus. Jesus clearly instructs his followers not to worship in public in Matthew 6:5-6.
And didn't Jesus advocate the separation of church and state in Mark 12:17? What the fuck kind of Christian are you? Oh yeah, you're an American Christian; one that doesn't bother to read their bible.
"The thing that bothers me the most about this is that these people ( I mean the liberals and atheists who file law suits of this nature) have no respect for the founding of this country. I am not saying that anyone has to even believe in a god, let alone worship one. But can you not even appreciate the fact that this country was founded by people who DID believe? And that the founders based much of the philosophy of this country on the tenets of their faith? So what if you don't believe in god, does that mean you cant respect that the founders' faiths gave us the greatest country in the world?"
Which "tenets" did they base the "philosophy" of American on? Let's all have guns? And what the hell is the "philosophy" of America anyways? Because some guy 200 years ago who signed the Declaration of Independence believed in God, kids have to say the Pledge of Allegence in school? Great reasoning, you've convinced me. Who gives a shit what the founding fathers believed in? The highest law in the land is the contents of the constitution, not the private beliefs of the people who wrote.They also believed in slavery. Should we bring that back too? Didn't Jefferson once rip 4 pages out of the Bible and declare that that was all the religion he needed? Maybe you're confusing the founding fathers of America with the founding fathers of Iran.
How many people today do you think actually worship Ra? You know Ra, the sun god of the ancient Egyptians. Probably not too many, right? But still every elementary school kid learns about Ra. He isn't banned from public schools and government property. But the modern day Christian god is. Why? Because the liberals are afraid of him. Because "God" can stop them, and deny their agenda. He is diametrically opposed to almost their entire agenda; gay-rights, abortion, almighty Government as the highest power, etc. Ra didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other about abortion, and he seemed passive enough toward homosexuality, so they leave him alone and let kids learn about him. Ra is A-OK with the libs, but not the Christian "G"-god.
Ugh. Fake Christians like yourself with you're God hates fag shit is just boring at this point. Yeah, the Bible says that homosexuality is bad. But it says lots of other things too, do you pay attention to all of them? Do you observe the feasts outlined in Deuteronomy 16? I suppose that you also believe that a rebellious son should be executed for not listening to his father as outlined in Deuteronomy 21:20-21? You must also believe that immodest women should have their hands cut off, (Deut:25:12), the punishment of banishment for eating blood (Leviticus 17:10), or having sex with a menstruous woman (Lev 18:19).
I guess its ok to sell one's daughter into slavery as well, (Exodus 21:7). I sure hope you don't cut the hair improperly, cause that could be big trouble (Lev 19:27). I could go on and on, but I'm sure even an idiot gets the point. You're a fucking hypocrite. You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible, (as well as with your nation's constitution), to further you own petty disgusting bigotry. I'm sure Jesus is really proud of you.
"In the end, I think we need some better lawyers on our side. What atheist doesn't want to pledge the words "under god"? Why not? Do they believe in a god? Nope. So god is nothing to them. So when they pledge that our couture is "one nation under god", they are really telling themselves that our nation is under nothing - or above all. I am OK with that. And what is their problem with it? You see, for someone who was truly an atheist, any pledge would have no meaning at all. It is like saying you don't believe in magic, but being afraid to say "abracadabra" just in case."
What the fuck are you talking about? "under nothing - or above all" - this isn't even logical in the remotest sense. It's just plain stupid. “Better lawyers”? This is how you propose social conflicts be resolved? With better lawyers. You may have just summed up everything that’s wrong with America. And what “side” are you talking about? Aren’t you all Americans? Aren’t you all supposed to be on the same side? Hell, aren’t you supposed to love everyone, what with being a good Christian and all?
'As for people who do have a religious belief, they need to realize that the "god" in that pledge is a generic term for any higher power. "One nation under god(in your head, insert you god's name here)"'
This is too fucking funny. The "name" of your God? God doesn't have a name. That's one of the main points of monotheism as invented by the Jews. When you give God a "name" you are engaging in idolatry, and we all know what the Bible says we should do with such people. Hell, that's even worse than being a homo.
"Now isn't everyone happy? I might be, if/when Roberts gets confirmed, and if/when he proves to be a conservation constitutionalist, and if/when he starts putting a stop to the liberal agenda"
The only agenda that is destroying America is the one furthered by idiots like you who seem to want an absolute plutocratic theocracy. You sound like one of those fucking nut jobs that runs Iran. You use religion to further your own narrow, evil, racist view of the world. Your arguments are illogical and childish and your faux-patriotism is moronic. Truly you are a loathsome worm fit only for extermination.
Before I begin, I'd just like to point out that the American pledge of allegence was written by a socialist Francis Bellamy and that the word "God" wasn't added until 1954, more than 50 years after it was written
Well, here goes.
"It is difficult to describe just how much this bothers me, on many different levels. First, I cannot believe the audacity of today's federal judiciary."
Well, that doesn't see so difficult. You're pissed with the federal judiciary. Why is that difficult to describe?
"I do not think I am exaggerating in the least when I say that these activist judges are destroying our country."
Yes, America has always been threatened by the invasion of the judges! And not foreign judges either. If you examine American history closely you'll see many of the tragedies were perpetrated by "activist judges". Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilks Booth, Tim McVeigh , Mohamed Atta, Hurricane Katrina; all judges, (McVeigh sat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals).
"Nothing in our modern society has as much effect on our collective daily lives as this kind of shit."
Absolutely nothing. Not the price fixing by the oil industry that fucks the economy up, not the pointless wars the president starts, not the poisoning of the environment by the plutocracy and their ever so holy corporations. Absolutely nothing.
"Not drugs, alcohol, gambling ... nothing. A drunk driver can kill someone, and it affects a few people. A judge makes a decision like this, and it affects every citizen of the US. I don't understand how this can be anything but a long-term liberal conspiracy."
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they're right and forcing citizens to publicly declare their allegiance to their nation is unconstitutional? Why does it have to be a "conspiracy". When you say such things without backing them up with proof you sound like a screw-ball. Besides, what kinds of countries force their citizens to do those sorts of thing in? Didn't the Nazi's do that? Next you'll be advocating some sort of youth organization named after the president that all children will be required to join.
"Decisions like this one are microscopic baby steps toward a feudal society. It is happening slowly but inexorably. They are wearing us down. It won't be long before we are all nothing but peasants under the monarch government."
Huh? Feudal? Are you sure you know what that word means? Do you know that "monarchy" and "feudalism" aren't the same thing? So the liberal conspiracy is to create a medieval economic system in America? Do you know how crazy you sound?
"We will only be allowed to worship the governments god (which is NO god at all) while we abide on government property. But the government is slowly usurping all the private property and property rights. So after a while, everything will be government property. I see it coming. It will probably start in some government run housing project. Praying in government funded housing will be outlawed. Then the DMV will come along and ban all the sickeningly cute little "WWJD" bumper stickers as inciteful. How can we expect some poor atheist stuck in a traffic jam to put up with having God crammed down his throat from the bumper of the car ahead of him? Isn't it traveling on a government highway? Isn't that bumper sticker a form of evangelistic? It must stop! Of course the atheist will have no recourse but to blow his top with road rage and kill the evil Christian mini-van driving soccermom. Then the case can go to court, be appealed repeatedly until they find some activist judge to agree that no religious symbols of any kind can be allowed on government property, including highways. Separation of church and state, ya know?"
Whatever you do, don't overstate the situation. I thought it was the federal judges that were the problem, now it's the "government". Or are they the same thing? Is it the courts that are "usurping all private property"? Are you going to come home one day to find Clarence Thomas wearing your bathrobe, eating your Fritos and dry humping your dog because he's usurped your home? I would like to point out that if the government did ban the worship of God in all public places it would be in absolute accordance with the instructions of Jesus. Jesus clearly instructs his followers not to worship in public in Matthew 6:5-6.
And didn't Jesus advocate the separation of church and state in Mark 12:17? What the fuck kind of Christian are you? Oh yeah, you're an American Christian; one that doesn't bother to read their bible.
"The thing that bothers me the most about this is that these people ( I mean the liberals and atheists who file law suits of this nature) have no respect for the founding of this country. I am not saying that anyone has to even believe in a god, let alone worship one. But can you not even appreciate the fact that this country was founded by people who DID believe? And that the founders based much of the philosophy of this country on the tenets of their faith? So what if you don't believe in god, does that mean you cant respect that the founders' faiths gave us the greatest country in the world?"
Which "tenets" did they base the "philosophy" of American on? Let's all have guns? And what the hell is the "philosophy" of America anyways? Because some guy 200 years ago who signed the Declaration of Independence believed in God, kids have to say the Pledge of Allegence in school? Great reasoning, you've convinced me. Who gives a shit what the founding fathers believed in? The highest law in the land is the contents of the constitution, not the private beliefs of the people who wrote.They also believed in slavery. Should we bring that back too? Didn't Jefferson once rip 4 pages out of the Bible and declare that that was all the religion he needed? Maybe you're confusing the founding fathers of America with the founding fathers of Iran.
How many people today do you think actually worship Ra? You know Ra, the sun god of the ancient Egyptians. Probably not too many, right? But still every elementary school kid learns about Ra. He isn't banned from public schools and government property. But the modern day Christian god is. Why? Because the liberals are afraid of him. Because "God" can stop them, and deny their agenda. He is diametrically opposed to almost their entire agenda; gay-rights, abortion, almighty Government as the highest power, etc. Ra didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other about abortion, and he seemed passive enough toward homosexuality, so they leave him alone and let kids learn about him. Ra is A-OK with the libs, but not the Christian "G"-god.
Ugh. Fake Christians like yourself with you're God hates fag shit is just boring at this point. Yeah, the Bible says that homosexuality is bad. But it says lots of other things too, do you pay attention to all of them? Do you observe the feasts outlined in Deuteronomy 16? I suppose that you also believe that a rebellious son should be executed for not listening to his father as outlined in Deuteronomy 21:20-21? You must also believe that immodest women should have their hands cut off, (Deut:25:12), the punishment of banishment for eating blood (Leviticus 17:10), or having sex with a menstruous woman (Lev 18:19).
I guess its ok to sell one's daughter into slavery as well, (Exodus 21:7). I sure hope you don't cut the hair improperly, cause that could be big trouble (Lev 19:27). I could go on and on, but I'm sure even an idiot gets the point. You're a fucking hypocrite. You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible, (as well as with your nation's constitution), to further you own petty disgusting bigotry. I'm sure Jesus is really proud of you.
"In the end, I think we need some better lawyers on our side. What atheist doesn't want to pledge the words "under god"? Why not? Do they believe in a god? Nope. So god is nothing to them. So when they pledge that our couture is "one nation under god", they are really telling themselves that our nation is under nothing - or above all. I am OK with that. And what is their problem with it? You see, for someone who was truly an atheist, any pledge would have no meaning at all. It is like saying you don't believe in magic, but being afraid to say "abracadabra" just in case."
What the fuck are you talking about? "under nothing - or above all" - this isn't even logical in the remotest sense. It's just plain stupid. “Better lawyers”? This is how you propose social conflicts be resolved? With better lawyers. You may have just summed up everything that’s wrong with America. And what “side” are you talking about? Aren’t you all Americans? Aren’t you all supposed to be on the same side? Hell, aren’t you supposed to love everyone, what with being a good Christian and all?
'As for people who do have a religious belief, they need to realize that the "god" in that pledge is a generic term for any higher power. "One nation under god(in your head, insert you god's name here)"'
This is too fucking funny. The "name" of your God? God doesn't have a name. That's one of the main points of monotheism as invented by the Jews. When you give God a "name" you are engaging in idolatry, and we all know what the Bible says we should do with such people. Hell, that's even worse than being a homo.
"Now isn't everyone happy? I might be, if/when Roberts gets confirmed, and if/when he proves to be a conservation constitutionalist, and if/when he starts putting a stop to the liberal agenda"
The only agenda that is destroying America is the one furthered by idiots like you who seem to want an absolute plutocratic theocracy. You sound like one of those fucking nut jobs that runs Iran. You use religion to further your own narrow, evil, racist view of the world. Your arguments are illogical and childish and your faux-patriotism is moronic. Truly you are a loathsome worm fit only for extermination.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Kayne West Sucks
This moring while reading our dear friend Skippy's, (aka Captain Nambla), blog entry about last nights hurricane relief concert I realized that while I had heard of Kayne West, I'd never listened to his music. I did watch the opening of the show, but once Randy Newman was done and Bonner showed up on my television I knew the rest would suck ass so I turned it off.
So being the open minded individual that I am I cracked open Limewire and downloaded the song that the Skipster mentioned, "Jesus Walks". Man, I wish I could have the 3 and a half minutes of my life that it took to listen to that song back. What a total piece of shit.
Lets get one thing straight, rap music isn't as good as many other forms of music, but that's not to say that there are some good rap bands. I'll let you in on a little secret, you don't have to waste your money on albums by people like Kayne West or Nelly or Pee Ditty. All you have to do is turn on your TV and wait for a fast food, or running shoe commerical to come on. Its all the same shit, probably produced by the same marketing department.
Now if you ever decide that you'd like to listen to something interesting, or just listen to "good" rap music then you should check out Gang Starr, or Jurassic 5, or maybe check out Ozomatli.
Hell the old NWA albums still rock out.
But you're probably a fucking idiot so I ain't expecting much.
So being the open minded individual that I am I cracked open Limewire and downloaded the song that the Skipster mentioned, "Jesus Walks". Man, I wish I could have the 3 and a half minutes of my life that it took to listen to that song back. What a total piece of shit.
Lets get one thing straight, rap music isn't as good as many other forms of music, but that's not to say that there are some good rap bands. I'll let you in on a little secret, you don't have to waste your money on albums by people like Kayne West or Nelly or Pee Ditty. All you have to do is turn on your TV and wait for a fast food, or running shoe commerical to come on. Its all the same shit, probably produced by the same marketing department.
Now if you ever decide that you'd like to listen to something interesting, or just listen to "good" rap music then you should check out Gang Starr, or Jurassic 5, or maybe check out Ozomatli.
Hell the old NWA albums still rock out.
But you're probably a fucking idiot so I ain't expecting much.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The new CBA
As I'm sure all of you know the NHL and the NHLPA recently signed a new 6 year CBA, ending a player lock-out perpetrated by the owners which resulted in the cancellation of last year's hockey season.
Before I outline just how much the new CBA sucks, a little history.NHL hockey has been going downhill over the last 10 or 15 years.I hold Gary Bettman, (the NHL president), responsible for the deterioration of the quality of NHL hockey. Excessive expansion has deluted the talent pool as well as weakened the NHL's economic power.The unwillingness or inability to enforce the rules of the game by the officals has helped allow styles such as "the trap" to flourish. Any hockey enthusiast will tell you that the North American version of the trap sucks ass and leads to monotonous games. Even without the trap players are often suffocated on the ice by the excessive obstruction which has directly led to less scoring and has really handicapped many of the finness players in the league.The lack of regulation when it comes to equipment has also hurt hockey, but figuratively and literally.Compare today's equipment with that which was worn 20 years ago and you'll see what I mean.An elbow pad from 20 years ago was smaller and not nearly as hard as it is today.
As if things weren't bad enough, our friends at the NHL and the NHLPA have recently made hockey much worse.The cornerstone of the new CBA is a salary cap of $39 million. Now this in itself isn't such a bad thing.It brings the percentage of league revenues going to player salaries in line with other major professional sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA. Now in addition to the salary cap they have added revenue sharing. So what this means is that a team which has a strong fan base and makes money like Detroit or Toronto is forced to share a certain percentage of their revenues with teams that don't make any money like Nashville or Carolina. So this means that a team such as Toronto cannot go out and spend as much as they can on players, but they also have to pay money so other teams can afford good players. This is complete bullshit. The dedicated fans in New York and Toronto and Detriot are being punished because business men like Bettman have some delusional fantasy that everybody in Nashville is going to wake up one day and love hockey. Anyone with half a brain knows that that is never going to happen and in the meantime I have to watch second rate hockey so Edmonton can afford to sign Chris Pronger.
I think the sign that the NHL had gone into the toilet was when people like Bettman and the owners stopped referring to it as a sport and instead started calling it a "product".Only people with no concept of hockey, it's history and traditions, could endorse three teams in California and two teams in Florida.
I'm not really sure of everything that needs to be done to make hockey better, but I think that anyone who honestly wants to make the NHL a better league and not just some dumb assed business venture for morons who know nothing about it, like the Disney Corporation, would agree with the following:
1) Contraction - at least 4 teams should be eliminated from the league - 6 would be better.
2) No expansion - once the league is down to 24 or 26 teams there should be no more expansion for at least 10-20 years.
3) Start enforcing the rules - crack down on obstruction (the NHL says they will do this in the upcoming season but they've said the same thing before and failed to live up to their promises).
4) Eliminate all revenue sharing - It should be the responsiblity of communities to support their own teams.
5) Get rid of the 3rd man in rule - If you don't approve of fighting in hockey, maybe you should try some faggot sport like basketball.6) Ban Todd Bertuzzi for life from the NHL - There is no room for people like him in the game of hockey.
I will probably watch hockey this year, as I do every year, but you know I didn't miss it as much as I thought I would last year, so if it sucks as badly as I think it will then maybe its time to find something else to do with my Saturday nights.
Before I outline just how much the new CBA sucks, a little history.NHL hockey has been going downhill over the last 10 or 15 years.I hold Gary Bettman, (the NHL president), responsible for the deterioration of the quality of NHL hockey. Excessive expansion has deluted the talent pool as well as weakened the NHL's economic power.The unwillingness or inability to enforce the rules of the game by the officals has helped allow styles such as "the trap" to flourish. Any hockey enthusiast will tell you that the North American version of the trap sucks ass and leads to monotonous games. Even without the trap players are often suffocated on the ice by the excessive obstruction which has directly led to less scoring and has really handicapped many of the finness players in the league.The lack of regulation when it comes to equipment has also hurt hockey, but figuratively and literally.Compare today's equipment with that which was worn 20 years ago and you'll see what I mean.An elbow pad from 20 years ago was smaller and not nearly as hard as it is today.
As if things weren't bad enough, our friends at the NHL and the NHLPA have recently made hockey much worse.The cornerstone of the new CBA is a salary cap of $39 million. Now this in itself isn't such a bad thing.It brings the percentage of league revenues going to player salaries in line with other major professional sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA. Now in addition to the salary cap they have added revenue sharing. So what this means is that a team which has a strong fan base and makes money like Detroit or Toronto is forced to share a certain percentage of their revenues with teams that don't make any money like Nashville or Carolina. So this means that a team such as Toronto cannot go out and spend as much as they can on players, but they also have to pay money so other teams can afford good players. This is complete bullshit. The dedicated fans in New York and Toronto and Detriot are being punished because business men like Bettman have some delusional fantasy that everybody in Nashville is going to wake up one day and love hockey. Anyone with half a brain knows that that is never going to happen and in the meantime I have to watch second rate hockey so Edmonton can afford to sign Chris Pronger.
I think the sign that the NHL had gone into the toilet was when people like Bettman and the owners stopped referring to it as a sport and instead started calling it a "product".Only people with no concept of hockey, it's history and traditions, could endorse three teams in California and two teams in Florida.
I'm not really sure of everything that needs to be done to make hockey better, but I think that anyone who honestly wants to make the NHL a better league and not just some dumb assed business venture for morons who know nothing about it, like the Disney Corporation, would agree with the following:
1) Contraction - at least 4 teams should be eliminated from the league - 6 would be better.
2) No expansion - once the league is down to 24 or 26 teams there should be no more expansion for at least 10-20 years.
3) Start enforcing the rules - crack down on obstruction (the NHL says they will do this in the upcoming season but they've said the same thing before and failed to live up to their promises).
4) Eliminate all revenue sharing - It should be the responsiblity of communities to support their own teams.
5) Get rid of the 3rd man in rule - If you don't approve of fighting in hockey, maybe you should try some faggot sport like basketball.6) Ban Todd Bertuzzi for life from the NHL - There is no room for people like him in the game of hockey.
I will probably watch hockey this year, as I do every year, but you know I didn't miss it as much as I thought I would last year, so if it sucks as badly as I think it will then maybe its time to find something else to do with my Saturday nights.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The October Crisis
In October 1970 two kidnappings perpetrated by a terrorist organization called the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) triggered a series of events that came to be known as the October Crisis.
Background:
The FLQ was a Marxist terrorist group founded in the 1960s, dedicated to Quebec independence from Canada and organized as cells.
They called for the overthrow of the Quebec government, the independence of Quebec from Canada, and the establishment of a communist society within Quebec.
The FLQ were firmly dedicated to violence and terrorism as means to achieve their goals. Between 1963 and 1970 the FLQ committed over 200 terrorist acts.
That works out to a terrorist act approximately every 15 days. These acts included bombings, bank robberies, and at least 5 murders.
They targetted Anglophone businesses and homes, banks, McGill University, statues, mailboxes, using guns, dynamite and even molotov cocktails.
On February 13 1969 the FLQ blew up the Montreal Stock Exchange seriously injuring 27 people.
Members of the FLQ had plotted to blow up the Statue of Liberty, but were apprehended before they could realize their plan.
In 1966 the FLQ prepared a secret document entitled "Revolutionary Strategy adn the Role of the Avant-Garde" which outlined their strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings and kidnappings.
The ultimate goal of these activities was widespread insurrection sparking a workers revolution which would topple the Quebec government.
By 1970 23 members of the FLQ were in prison, including 4 convicted of murder.
In February 1970 two men were arrested in Montreal when it was discovered that they had a sawed off shotgun and a note announcing the kidnapping of the Israeli consul.
In June the police raided a home north of Montreal in the Laurentian mountains and found firearms, 136 kg of dynamite, ammunition, detonators and a ransom note to be used in the kidnapping of the American consul.
The October Crisis:
October 5 1970:
The "Liberation Cell" of the FLQ kidnapped British Trad Commissioner James Cross from his home.
A communique was released to the authorities that contained several demands including:
1. the release of 23 "political prisoners"
2. $500,000 in gold
3. the broadcast and publication of the FLQ Manifesto
4. the publication of the names of the police informants for terrorist activities
5. an aircraft to take the kidnappers to Cuba or Algeria
6. the rehiring of about 450 Lapalme postal workers who had been laid off
7. the cessation of all police search activities
October 6:
Prime Minister Trudeau declared that any decision regarding the FLQ's demands would be made jointly by the federal government and the governmnet of Quebec.
The federal government rejected the demands as unreasonable via a statement by Minister of External Affairs Mitchell Sharp
This rejection was approved of by Robert Bourassa the Premier of Quebec.
The FLQ started sending notes threatening to kill Cross if their demands are not met, to a Quebec radio station (CKAC).
Several newspapers published the FLQ manifesto.
October 7:
Police raids started at dawn netting 30 arrests.
Quebec Minister of Justice Jerome Choquette stated that he is available for negotiations "anytime".
The FLQ sent more threats to kill Cross to radio stations.
The FLQ manifesto was read on station CKAC
October 8:
The FLQ manifesto is read live on French national television (CBC).
October 9:
The FLQ furnished proof that Cross is still alive as was demanded by Choquette
October 10:
Bourassa returned to Quebec, (he was on a promo trip to New York).
Rene Levesque, the leader of the sepratist Parti Quebecois appealed to the kidnappers to abandon violence.
Choquette agreed to provide safe passage out of the country for the kidnappers if Cross was released alive.
Pierre Laporte the Quebec Minister of Labour and Vice-Premier is kidnapped at his home.
October 11:
The police continued with several raids.
Communiques threatening to murder Laporte were issued, if all demands (listed above) were not met.
A letter was sent from Laporte to Bourassa in which Laporte pleaded for the Premier to save his life.
The authorities in Quebec were flooded with requests for protection.
October 12:
A communique was sent from the cell holding Cross indicating that the freedom of the two hostages could be achieved if
the 23 prisoner were released from prison and the kidnappers were given safe passage out of Canada. This communique was written to
influence the cell holding Laporte which appeared to be the more radical of the two. It is obivious that the cells are either
at odds with eachother or are not communicating.
Soldiers were dispatched to downtown Ottawa to protect the federal government.
Robert Demers, Treasurer for the Liberal Party of Quebec, was appointed to to negotiate with Robert Lemieux, a lawyer and FLQ representative.
October 13:
Talks between Demers and Lemieux failed.
Levesque urged the Quebec government to give in to the kidnappers demands and save the lives of the hostages.
Trudeau makes his famous "Well, just watch me" statement.
October 14:
A special federal cabinet meeting was held to discuss how the situation could be resolved, including possibly of envoking the War Measures Act.
A statement signed by 16 Quebec personalities including Claude Ryan and Levesque was released, which urged the Quebec government to end the drama, "despite and against all obstruction from outside Quebec".
October 15:
Bourassa annouced that he asked the federal government to send the army to Quebec to assist the civil authorities in ensuring the "saftey of the people and public buildings",
as the civilian police force was overwhelmed by the crisis.
Such a request was made under the terms of the Aid to Civil Authorities, a part of the National Defense Act.
Within less than one hour, about 1,000 men of the Royal 22nd Regiment arrived in Montreal to occupy key positions in the city.
Further troops were deployed in the following days.
A student rally of 3000 people expresses sympathy and support for the FLQ.
The public display of support worries authorities.
October 16:
A deadline set by Bourassa passed with no word from the kidnappers.
Trudeau annouced the imposition of the War Measures Act, which did not place the entire country under martial law as many believe.
The War Measures Act gave the government sweeping powers but did not entail the assuption of powers of trial and punishment by the military which is one of the main characterists of martial law.
The FLQ was declared an unlawful association.
October 17:
The cell holding Laporte announced that he had been executed.
He was strangled and his body was abandoned near Saint-Hubert Airport just outside Montreal.
The Liberation Cell announced that they were suspending Cross' execution indefinately and he would only be harmed if the police tied to save him.
October 30:
Levesque wrote in the Journal de Montreal that: The army occupies Quebec. It is unpleasent but undoubtedly necessary at a time of crisis.
November 6:
Police raided the hiding place of the cell that kidnapped Laporte.
Three FLQ members escape but Bernard Lortie is arrested and charged with kidnapping and murdering Laporte.
December 3:
Cross is released after 60 days in captivity.
The five terrorists that kidnapped and held him are granted safe passage to Cuba after the approval of Castro.
They are flown to Cuba on a Canadian military aircraft.
December 27:
The three remaining members of the cell that murdered Laporte are arrested.
Analysis:
One of the main controversies to emerge from the October Crisis was the government's use of the War Measures Act.
At the time there was widespread support both within Quebec and the rest of Canada for the government's actions.
The government acted within the law and received only minimal political opposition at the time, most notably from Tommy Douglas.
At the same time that the WMA was envoked the Solicitor-General of Quebec requisitioned, from the Chief of Defence Staff in accordance with the National Defence Act, the depolyment of the military in "Aid of the Civil Power".
Troops were dispatched in order to guard vulnerable locations and prominent individuals at risk, under the direction of the Quebec provincal police.
Even Rene Levesque, a dedicated sepratist, admitted that the use of the army was necessary.
One must keep in mind that martial law was not enforced, the army was called in to assist civilian authorities and took their direction from them.
The primary criticism of Trudeau's government's use of the WMA is that the threat posed by the FLQ was overstated and there was no need to use the WMA and that the government acted irresposibly as a result.
I think that this is a pretty weak criticism.
I think that the government was completely justified in what it did and acted with remarkable responsibility. The size of the FLQ was not known at the time. It is fair to say that it was a fairly small organization and that it could not have possibly overthrown the government of Quebec. It is also fair to say that the government knew this. Despite this the FLQ were still a violent radical organization that had spent the previous 8 years terrorizing Quebec. The kidnappings and murder of Laporte indicated an escalation in the FLQ’s use of violence. Radical action was required to quell the situation. All levels of government knew this. Both the municipal authorities in Montreal and the provincial government asked the Federal government to use the WMA. What should Trudeau have done? Refuse them? That would have caused outrage across the country including Quebec. The government was unsure of the strength and size of the FLQ at the time and wanted to prevent further kidnappings and murders. Even a relatively small organization can wreak havoc on a society if they have the will and means. Having the military to assist the police was a great help, and those who murdered Laporte were caught and tried.
Those detained under the WMA were given legal counsel. The Quebec Ombudsman was instructed to hear complaints of detainees and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested.
By February 3, 1971 the federal government reported that 497 people had been arrested under the WMA and that 435 had already been released. The remaining 62 were charged with a variety of crimes.
So what harm was done? 435 people were wrongly detained. But those who were wrongly arrested were compensated for their trouble. It is unfortunate, but we must view the whole crisis within its historical context. People were scared. The government was flooded with requests for protection. The state had to take the steps it felt were necessary to secure the situation. Even outside that context, what country would not take extraordinary action against a terrorist group who had committed hundreds of violent acts against the state and its citizens, when it started murdering members of the government?
I think that people who are critical of the government’s use of the WMA are either ignorant of Canadian politics/history, or they are just playing politics and using it to degrade Trudeau. I have never heard anyone suggest a viable alternative option open to the government. It was the government’s duty to do everything in its power to stop these murdering terrorist who sought to manipulate the state with their violent acts. I would like someone to explain to me what better solution they have, or would have had a the time.
I think Trudeau put it best:
“There are a lot of bleeding hearts around that don’t like to see people with helmets and guns, all I can say is go on and bleed. It’s more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don’t like the looks of soldiers.”
There have been no terrorist acts within Canada measuring up to the October Crisis since it happened. One could argue that this is in part due to the government vigorous response to the FLQ via the use of the WMA.
Background:
The FLQ was a Marxist terrorist group founded in the 1960s, dedicated to Quebec independence from Canada and organized as cells.
They called for the overthrow of the Quebec government, the independence of Quebec from Canada, and the establishment of a communist society within Quebec.
The FLQ were firmly dedicated to violence and terrorism as means to achieve their goals. Between 1963 and 1970 the FLQ committed over 200 terrorist acts.
That works out to a terrorist act approximately every 15 days. These acts included bombings, bank robberies, and at least 5 murders.
They targetted Anglophone businesses and homes, banks, McGill University, statues, mailboxes, using guns, dynamite and even molotov cocktails.
On February 13 1969 the FLQ blew up the Montreal Stock Exchange seriously injuring 27 people.
Members of the FLQ had plotted to blow up the Statue of Liberty, but were apprehended before they could realize their plan.
In 1966 the FLQ prepared a secret document entitled "Revolutionary Strategy adn the Role of the Avant-Garde" which outlined their strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings and kidnappings.
The ultimate goal of these activities was widespread insurrection sparking a workers revolution which would topple the Quebec government.
By 1970 23 members of the FLQ were in prison, including 4 convicted of murder.
In February 1970 two men were arrested in Montreal when it was discovered that they had a sawed off shotgun and a note announcing the kidnapping of the Israeli consul.
In June the police raided a home north of Montreal in the Laurentian mountains and found firearms, 136 kg of dynamite, ammunition, detonators and a ransom note to be used in the kidnapping of the American consul.
The October Crisis:
October 5 1970:
The "Liberation Cell" of the FLQ kidnapped British Trad Commissioner James Cross from his home.
A communique was released to the authorities that contained several demands including:
1. the release of 23 "political prisoners"
2. $500,000 in gold
3. the broadcast and publication of the FLQ Manifesto
4. the publication of the names of the police informants for terrorist activities
5. an aircraft to take the kidnappers to Cuba or Algeria
6. the rehiring of about 450 Lapalme postal workers who had been laid off
7. the cessation of all police search activities
October 6:
Prime Minister Trudeau declared that any decision regarding the FLQ's demands would be made jointly by the federal government and the governmnet of Quebec.
The federal government rejected the demands as unreasonable via a statement by Minister of External Affairs Mitchell Sharp
This rejection was approved of by Robert Bourassa the Premier of Quebec.
The FLQ started sending notes threatening to kill Cross if their demands are not met, to a Quebec radio station (CKAC).
Several newspapers published the FLQ manifesto.
October 7:
Police raids started at dawn netting 30 arrests.
Quebec Minister of Justice Jerome Choquette stated that he is available for negotiations "anytime".
The FLQ sent more threats to kill Cross to radio stations.
The FLQ manifesto was read on station CKAC
October 8:
The FLQ manifesto is read live on French national television (CBC).
October 9:
The FLQ furnished proof that Cross is still alive as was demanded by Choquette
October 10:
Bourassa returned to Quebec, (he was on a promo trip to New York).
Rene Levesque, the leader of the sepratist Parti Quebecois appealed to the kidnappers to abandon violence.
Choquette agreed to provide safe passage out of the country for the kidnappers if Cross was released alive.
Pierre Laporte the Quebec Minister of Labour and Vice-Premier is kidnapped at his home.
October 11:
The police continued with several raids.
Communiques threatening to murder Laporte were issued, if all demands (listed above) were not met.
A letter was sent from Laporte to Bourassa in which Laporte pleaded for the Premier to save his life.
The authorities in Quebec were flooded with requests for protection.
October 12:
A communique was sent from the cell holding Cross indicating that the freedom of the two hostages could be achieved if
the 23 prisoner were released from prison and the kidnappers were given safe passage out of Canada. This communique was written to
influence the cell holding Laporte which appeared to be the more radical of the two. It is obivious that the cells are either
at odds with eachother or are not communicating.
Soldiers were dispatched to downtown Ottawa to protect the federal government.
Robert Demers, Treasurer for the Liberal Party of Quebec, was appointed to to negotiate with Robert Lemieux, a lawyer and FLQ representative.
October 13:
Talks between Demers and Lemieux failed.
Levesque urged the Quebec government to give in to the kidnappers demands and save the lives of the hostages.
Trudeau makes his famous "Well, just watch me" statement.
October 14:
A special federal cabinet meeting was held to discuss how the situation could be resolved, including possibly of envoking the War Measures Act.
A statement signed by 16 Quebec personalities including Claude Ryan and Levesque was released, which urged the Quebec government to end the drama, "despite and against all obstruction from outside Quebec".
October 15:
Bourassa annouced that he asked the federal government to send the army to Quebec to assist the civil authorities in ensuring the "saftey of the people and public buildings",
as the civilian police force was overwhelmed by the crisis.
Such a request was made under the terms of the Aid to Civil Authorities, a part of the National Defense Act.
Within less than one hour, about 1,000 men of the Royal 22nd Regiment arrived in Montreal to occupy key positions in the city.
Further troops were deployed in the following days.
A student rally of 3000 people expresses sympathy and support for the FLQ.
The public display of support worries authorities.
October 16:
A deadline set by Bourassa passed with no word from the kidnappers.
Trudeau annouced the imposition of the War Measures Act, which did not place the entire country under martial law as many believe.
The War Measures Act gave the government sweeping powers but did not entail the assuption of powers of trial and punishment by the military which is one of the main characterists of martial law.
The FLQ was declared an unlawful association.
October 17:
The cell holding Laporte announced that he had been executed.
He was strangled and his body was abandoned near Saint-Hubert Airport just outside Montreal.
The Liberation Cell announced that they were suspending Cross' execution indefinately and he would only be harmed if the police tied to save him.
October 30:
Levesque wrote in the Journal de Montreal that: The army occupies Quebec. It is unpleasent but undoubtedly necessary at a time of crisis.
November 6:
Police raided the hiding place of the cell that kidnapped Laporte.
Three FLQ members escape but Bernard Lortie is arrested and charged with kidnapping and murdering Laporte.
December 3:
Cross is released after 60 days in captivity.
The five terrorists that kidnapped and held him are granted safe passage to Cuba after the approval of Castro.
They are flown to Cuba on a Canadian military aircraft.
December 27:
The three remaining members of the cell that murdered Laporte are arrested.
Analysis:
One of the main controversies to emerge from the October Crisis was the government's use of the War Measures Act.
At the time there was widespread support both within Quebec and the rest of Canada for the government's actions.
The government acted within the law and received only minimal political opposition at the time, most notably from Tommy Douglas.
At the same time that the WMA was envoked the Solicitor-General of Quebec requisitioned, from the Chief of Defence Staff in accordance with the National Defence Act, the depolyment of the military in "Aid of the Civil Power".
Troops were dispatched in order to guard vulnerable locations and prominent individuals at risk, under the direction of the Quebec provincal police.
Even Rene Levesque, a dedicated sepratist, admitted that the use of the army was necessary.
One must keep in mind that martial law was not enforced, the army was called in to assist civilian authorities and took their direction from them.
The primary criticism of Trudeau's government's use of the WMA is that the threat posed by the FLQ was overstated and there was no need to use the WMA and that the government acted irresposibly as a result.
I think that this is a pretty weak criticism.
I think that the government was completely justified in what it did and acted with remarkable responsibility. The size of the FLQ was not known at the time. It is fair to say that it was a fairly small organization and that it could not have possibly overthrown the government of Quebec. It is also fair to say that the government knew this. Despite this the FLQ were still a violent radical organization that had spent the previous 8 years terrorizing Quebec. The kidnappings and murder of Laporte indicated an escalation in the FLQ’s use of violence. Radical action was required to quell the situation. All levels of government knew this. Both the municipal authorities in Montreal and the provincial government asked the Federal government to use the WMA. What should Trudeau have done? Refuse them? That would have caused outrage across the country including Quebec. The government was unsure of the strength and size of the FLQ at the time and wanted to prevent further kidnappings and murders. Even a relatively small organization can wreak havoc on a society if they have the will and means. Having the military to assist the police was a great help, and those who murdered Laporte were caught and tried.
Those detained under the WMA were given legal counsel. The Quebec Ombudsman was instructed to hear complaints of detainees and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested.
By February 3, 1971 the federal government reported that 497 people had been arrested under the WMA and that 435 had already been released. The remaining 62 were charged with a variety of crimes.
So what harm was done? 435 people were wrongly detained. But those who were wrongly arrested were compensated for their trouble. It is unfortunate, but we must view the whole crisis within its historical context. People were scared. The government was flooded with requests for protection. The state had to take the steps it felt were necessary to secure the situation. Even outside that context, what country would not take extraordinary action against a terrorist group who had committed hundreds of violent acts against the state and its citizens, when it started murdering members of the government?
I think that people who are critical of the government’s use of the WMA are either ignorant of Canadian politics/history, or they are just playing politics and using it to degrade Trudeau. I have never heard anyone suggest a viable alternative option open to the government. It was the government’s duty to do everything in its power to stop these murdering terrorist who sought to manipulate the state with their violent acts. I would like someone to explain to me what better solution they have, or would have had a the time.
I think Trudeau put it best:
“There are a lot of bleeding hearts around that don’t like to see people with helmets and guns, all I can say is go on and bleed. It’s more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don’t like the looks of soldiers.”
There have been no terrorist acts within Canada measuring up to the October Crisis since it happened. One could argue that this is in part due to the government vigorous response to the FLQ via the use of the WMA.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
What the fuck?
What the fuck is wrong with the American government?
I've been watching the news about the hurricane and flooding in the south and I really can't believe that the American federal government is letting people live down there for what 4 days now with little or no assistance.
Days before the it actually hit they were predicting that this was going to be the big one and that the damage was going to be massive. But no one seems to have done anything.
Why didn't the president end his vacation sooner. And why the hell does he get a month long vacation. I don't get a month long vacation. Does the average American worker get a month long vacation? He looked like a fucking idiot today talking about the tonnes of help that's coming. I'm sure that was very comforting to the people dying in New Orleans because they can't get any insulin, or the people stuck no the roofs of their homes with no food or fresh water to drink.
If it was Beverly Hills that got flooded how long do you think it would take the government to show up? About 10 fucking minutes. This all just goes to show that poor black lives aren't worth nearly as much as rich white ones in America.
I've been watching the news about the hurricane and flooding in the south and I really can't believe that the American federal government is letting people live down there for what 4 days now with little or no assistance.
Days before the it actually hit they were predicting that this was going to be the big one and that the damage was going to be massive. But no one seems to have done anything.
Why didn't the president end his vacation sooner. And why the hell does he get a month long vacation. I don't get a month long vacation. Does the average American worker get a month long vacation? He looked like a fucking idiot today talking about the tonnes of help that's coming. I'm sure that was very comforting to the people dying in New Orleans because they can't get any insulin, or the people stuck no the roofs of their homes with no food or fresh water to drink.
If it was Beverly Hills that got flooded how long do you think it would take the government to show up? About 10 fucking minutes. This all just goes to show that poor black lives aren't worth nearly as much as rich white ones in America.
