We could as easily be having, and quite possibly should be having, a discussion focused on the lack of treatment available to the mentally ill.
In both cases I seem to recall the families were aware that their sons were going off the rails, but there was no one, no where, to turn for help. Especially within the immigrant community.
Why aren’t we having that discussion? It would seem more apt, to me.
This kid was hardly the best example of the isolation of the “immigrant community”. His mother was a federal government bureaucrat from Quebec, and no immigrant.
That noted - there is no reason why we can’t “have a discussion” about mental illness. It isn’t as if there is a strict dichotomy between the mentally ill on one hand, and terrorists on the other. Wanting to die in the name of an ideology isn’t exactly the hallmark of being in the pink of mental health.
The Star cite says
I don’t think anyone is actually leaving aside facts, though I suppose I’m giving some facts a lower consideration than others.
I still contend that some loser finally found a worldview he felt could kill and die for and, in the narcissistic selfie age we live in, made a video. If that’s the bar at which we start building laws to deal with terrorism we are walking ourselves into a place where the subjective nature of what counts as radicalized/indoctrinated becomes far too open to abuse.
If we’re going to do this then lets build on our approach to how we deal with organized crime and apply it to organized terrorism. That gives us a model to deal with local/national/trans-national organizations focused not on money but killing and property destruction specifically engaged in to enforce political change.
Now it would restrict applying a terrorism label to to activities taken by 3 or more members of an organization that would persist after the action is taken. That raises the threshold to a point where we wouldn’t label nutters/loser as more than they are (criminals) and yet be able to identify persistent threats.
What’s the “abuse”? Calling a guy who kills in the name of an ideology strikes me as simply descriptive. How is that “abusive”?
Not sure I understand what the point is. Yes, those who act with the backing of a group should be treated differently than those who don’t. That isn’t in dispute, is it?
So Grey, by your proposed test, Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist, and the Oklahoma City Bombing was what? Just a mass murder, targeted against the US federal government, based on an ideological viewpoint that the feds were out of control, but not terrorism, because he only had 1 accomplice? If he had two accomplices, it would be terrorism?
Seems pretty arbitrary.
So as an aside, just how crazy would someone have to be before you stopped calling it a terrorist act? What if his “ideology” was Martian supremacy? A world united under Cthulhu worship?
Northern Piper, it’s hardly more arbitrary than our definitions of organized crime which is “…defined by Canada’s Criminal Code as crime committed by any group of at least **three **people that has as one of its main purposes or activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences where the primary motive is profit.” (bolding is mine)
But yes, in my proposed model the Oklahoma City Bombing would only be mass murder. Given the “movement”, such as it was, died out following the act there’s no further “terrorist organization” to continue pressing for the changes McVeigh and company acted on.
Ultimately I don’t trust us or politicians to refrain from progressively heightening the level of punishment for “terrorism” vs. an equivalent criminal act. If we are to do such a thing, a very specific definition and criteria have to be put into place. Maybe such a thing exists and I’m concerned for no reason but I dislike making or introducing laws in the heat of the moment.
Not that it matters much, but I’d be comfortable limiting the term to an aideology actually shared by others - however bizzare.
For example: Symbionese Liberation Army - Wikipedia
Generally shared? Of do they have to know each other and belong to a specific named group? And where do we find the membership cards to confirm their being members?
There is no denying the guy is a nut and a murderer, but his motivations for being a murderer are an important factor in what he did.
And, I believe, that circles us back around to …a discussion of mental illness.
And I also think proclaiming them as part of a monolithic “terrorist” threat, actually glorifies them in exactly the way they were hoping. In doing so, are we not just enticing the next nutcase who wants notoriety and to appear a bigger threat than he is?
Why can’t we take their word for it? He allegedly claimed he was killing people in the name of an ideology, in a taped speech. Unless there is evidence to rebut that, I see nothing wrong in assuming that was what actually motivated him.
There is no necessity to believe the threat is “monolithic”.
In any event - whether calling him and those like him “terrorists” glorifies them or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
The issue is not whether the label is useful, but whether it is accurate. I would dislike people slapping a “terrorist” label on non-terrorists (even if it was arguably “useful”), and similarly, I dislike the notion of refusing to use the term of a real terrorist in the name of expediency.
I agree.
I think the really sad thing about this whole state of affairs is what Elbows is alluding to, in that had the government not slashed spending on mental health services over the last 8 years, the likelihood of what occurred may not have at all with these individuals.
I don’t think it can be disputed that both Martin Rouleau and Micheal Zehaff-Bibeau had mental health issues, and that someone with a stable mental picture is going to look at the idea of Radical Violent Fundamentalism of any stripe and say “What a great idea!” and get the rifle from the safe and go to their local MLAs office.
Unfortunately, what will happen is we will edge one step closer to a closed government, with less freedoms, all in the name of trying to stop something that is virtually unstoppable if/when it occurs rather than addressing the root of the problem, which is minimizing the marginalized members of our society and getting them the help they need.
Rickjay’s points are spot on about arming the ceremonial guards as the issue of ammo and bolts are very tightly controlled.
Have you seen the video of the ‘social experiment’ harassing an apparent Muslim at a Hamilton bus stop? I can’t figure out how to link to it, sorry.
It reinforces my confidence that Canadians were hopefully not going to move toward kneejerk overreaction.
I won’t tell you how it ends in case you happen upon it, but it’s pretty awesome! I’m certain some of you must have seen it.
Radical violent extremism of any stripe is by definition a mental health issue - never a case of actual ideological conviction?
Does this same reasoning apply to guys who kill abortion providers? Or neo-Nazis? If we had better mental health facilities in the US and Canada, we would have no problems with these guys? [BTW, I fully agree that we do NOT do enough for mental illness]
I think this is too simplistic. No doubt, those with mental health issues are more likely to be attracted to violent ideologies - but it isn’t a one-on-one mapping.
Moreover, I am not convinced that catagorizing violent extremism as a mental health issue is the key to avoiding government over-reaction or an erosion of civil liberties. On the contrary, it strikes me that there are potentially more people with mental health problems than those involved in extreme ideological movements. Imagine, if you will, having to get a psych evaluation from the RCMP to get a driver’s licence or a passport - or having the RCMP routinely comb through your medical records. Or, worst case, that any opposition to the norms of society gets classified as a mental “illness” that needs “treating”.
Which government slashed spending on mental health issues in the last 8 years? Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. Both of these guys grew up in Quebec, with Zehaff-Bibeau spending the last few years in British Columbia.
The Liberals held power in Quebec from 2003 to 2012
The PQ from 2012 to 2014
And the Liberals since.
Which one slashed spending on mental health, and do you have a cite?
I don’t think all mass murderers are mentally ill. Sometimes they may be perfectly sane, logical, cold, rational people.
I have to echo Leaffan’s request for a cite that anyone has cut mental health spending. Federal health transfers - which aren’t earmarked for any particular type of health - have gone up, year after year, for ten years at least, even accounting for inflation and population growth. I cannot find any evidence the province of Quebec has “slashed” mental health spending. So where is the slash?