Alexandre Bissonnette: QC Mosque shooter- 29 Jan 2017

[mariomike]

Nothing.

IMHO  based on his election campaign and results of his government to date, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

I'm not defending his politics, one way or the other. I'd be more likely to vote for "American Idol" or "The Voice" than our federal elections. 

 

[Rifleman62]

I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections. You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Trudeau, 'false and misleading’ ?  Funny headline.

Uh, I think that's referring to one of the early FOX News initial Twitter posts/headines being false/misleading (which, to be fair to FOX, has been corrected, and was the same as a LOT of MSM outlets were going with until replacing it with more current info).

I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections. You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.

It's called "having a different opinion" - whether someone votes or not.

Meanwhile, a bit more on the "terrorism" labeling thing ...

Within 24 hours of Sunday’s shooting in a Quebec City mosque, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette stood in a prisoner’s box as the 11 charges against him were read aloud.

By then, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had already condemned the killing of six worshippers as a terrorism attack. Other political leaders, federal and provincial, also called it an act of terror.

And yet, Bissonnette was charged with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder — but not with any terrorism offences.

Why not? According to experts, there could be several reasons.

The Criminal Code of Canada defines violent acts as terrorism if they’re done, entirely or in part, for political, religious or ideological purposes and with the intention of intimidating the public or a specific segment of the public.

“It poses two extra burdens on the Crown in terms of proving what was in the mind of the accused at the time of the offence,” Alana Klein, a McGill University criminal law professor, noted on Tuesday.

“It’s much easier to demonstrate that an accused had the intent to kill, which is required for a murder charge, than it is to show the motivation behind his or her actions.”

(...)

“If he wasn’t charged with terrorism it’s because they don’t have the evidence to justify it at this point,” said Louis Morissette, a forensic psychologist, criminology expert and Université de Montréal professor.

“It doesn’t mean it won’t come,” he added. “Investigators will look into his computer or documents at home. They’ll look at his social media accounts or any notes he’s written. Even the books he had in his room.”

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

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

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

 

[mariomike]

I believe you have previously posted (and took down) that you don't vote in Provincial or Federal elections.

Rifleman62. Sorry for not replying to you sooner, we had to go shopping.

It's not that I refuse to vote, I just don't follow party politics much. But, I love living in Canada - more so now than ever. 
Municipal politics still gets the focus of my attention.

In my 8+ years here,- whichever party gets in - I have never disrespected the Prime Minister of Canada, or Premier of Ontario.

You of course don't vote in US elections at any level so I don't comprehend your Trumpitis.

They put him in Radio Chatter. So, I go by this ROE,

I know I've been gently poked for not having a sense of humour when it comes to some of the digs going on.  To pass along some sage advice, "we have to remember to check if we are in RADIO CHATTER before we want to "seriously" comment on a less than "serious" thread"

No politicians get a Safe Space in Radio Chatter! 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No. You are just grasping at straw. There is a big difference between a school and a university.

The professor is a Laval University Agriculture department professor. The alleged perpetrator was in the Social Sciences department. There are about 60,000 students at Laval University, with a campus about two and a half square kilometres filled with about 30 different pavilions. There is about 800 meters between the Social Sciences pavilion and the Agriculture one, and in Quebec's francophone universities, there are no such things as requirement for a certain number of "electives" out of department. The chances that he knew that prof., while not nil, are pretty remote.

Point taken, I only noted it from the media coverage as possibility. One thing to keep in mind is that while these people were innocent and undeserving of this attack, Islam in itself is not innocent and is also been a motivator for similar attacks on non-muslims. My sympathy will be for the people and families hurt, ruined and destroyed by these actions.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit of an update ...

The Quebec City mosque that was the target of a mass shooting last January will boost security after a flux of “hateful messages.” And while they report receiving one or two pieces of hate mail per week, one of the most aggressive ones arrived last week.

The Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec received a package on Friday containing a defaced Quran and a note suggesting the community use a hog farm as a cemetery.

The package arrived two days before a controversial referendum in a nearby town rejected a plan to build a long-sought Muslim cemetery.

The note reads: “You’re looking for a cemetery to bury your dirty carcasses? Then here is an ideal place for you. It will smell like pork anyway.” Last year, a pig’s head with a note that read “bon appétit” was found outside the mosque.

A group that campaigned aggressively against that cemetery say they had nothing to do with the defaced Quran.

While Friday’s package might be the most aggressive message the mosque has received in recent months, the centre’s president Mohamed Labidi says the hate mail has become increasingly common — he told VICE News that the mosque receives one or two hate messages per week.

“We have received a lot of messages like ‘go to your home, you’re not safe here,’” he added. “There is some fear. We try to calm our community to pass through these difficulties … and to fight together to eradicate racism and xenophobia.” ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest ...

Alexandre Bissonnette, accused of killing six Muslim men at a Quebec City mosque in January, is back in court under tight security.

Additional evidence was given to defence lawyers at the Quebec City courthouse, including information from computers, said one of the Crown prosecutors, Thomas Jacques. But the disclosure of the evidence is not completed.

A “marginal” element was still coming from the forensics laboratory in Montreal, Jacques said.

Bissonnette, dressed in a grey sweater, appeared before the court with disheveled hair. He looked haggard as he followed the procedures, and raised his cuffed hands a few times to scratch his head.

On Friday, Judge Alain Morand will also hear the media request for certain documents to be made public. Among other things, news organizations want to obtain sworn statements from the police and search warrants.

(...)

The accused will be back in court Oct 6.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest:  straight to judge + jury trial with no preliminary inqury - back in court 6 Dec to (maybe) set a trial date.

Also, no terrorism charges reportedly being laid (links to article in French):  at this point, 6 x counts first-degree murder,  and 5 x attempted murder using a restricted firearm and 1 x attempted murder.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The latest:  straight to judge + jury trial with no preliminary inqury - back in court 6 Dec to (maybe) set a trial date.

Also, no terrorism charges reportedly being laid (links to article in French):  at this point, 6 x counts first-degree murder,  and 5 x attempted murder using a restricted firearm and 1 x attempted murder.

it's sad to see that no terrorism charges were laid, as this is a clear terrorist attack. The less cynical side of me wants to believe that if the case was reversed, ie- a muslim man shot and killed 6 Christians in a church, that the outcome would be the same. I, however, live in a more cynical world where I don't believe that is the case. Same as the Las Vegas shooter coverage has suddenly become less a "terrorist" attack and more of a "mass shooting". Trumps refusal to use "terrorist" is another indicator.

 

[Loachman]

I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter.

Until such time as a motivation has been determined for the Las Vegas a-hole's crime, terming it as "terrorism" would be completely inappropriate and quite likely wrong.

 

[The Bread Guy]

it's sad to see that no terrorism charges were laid, as this is a clear terrorist attack ...

I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter ...

I'm with you both on this, but it isn't as simple or easy as it seems ...

Quebec City and Edmonton attacks: Why it's difficult to lay terrorism charges in Canada
Sean Fine, Globe & Mail, 4 Oct 2017

The attacks had all the hallmarks of terrorism. In Quebec City, a man is accused of fatally shooting six worshippers at a mosque, and attempting to kill others. In Edmonton, a man is accused of driving a van into pedestrians and stabbing a police officer. Yet neither has been charged with committing an act of terrorism.

The answer may lie in a prosecutorial view that a terrorism charge is superfluous when the available penalties are already severe for murder and attempted murder. Here's a look at terrorism law in light of the two incidents.

What is the distinguishing feature of terrorism?

The motivation. It's not just any act of violence (or other act, such as a disruption of an essential service like electrical power), but violence committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose; and violence aimed at intimidating the public (or a portion of the public), or the government.

How does terrorism differ from a hate crime?

Hate is treated as an aggravating factor in a crime, which means that it may lead a judge to give a longer sentence than if hate had not been present. It is not, generally, a crime in itself. By contrast, terrorism offences usually exist alongside Criminal Code offences such as murder or attempted murder. Prosecutors first need to prove those offences before moving on to show the terrorist motives. There are also terrorism offences aimed at filling in the gaps in law, largely after 9/11, such as stopping the raising of funds for terrorist groups, or collecting weapons or materiel, or otherwise facilitating, promoting or assisting terrorists.

So why didn't prosecutors in Quebec lay terrorism charges in last January's attack on the mosque worshippers? Wasn't that aimed at intimidation, and done for some form of political or ideological objective?

The answer may be that the penalties for mass murder are already the most severe in the Criminal Code; terrorism charges would add a layer of complexity, but not necessarily a greater punishment. Terrorism cases are handled by federal prosecutors. This week, Quebec's prosecution service declined to explain why no terrorism charges were laid. The intent to intimidate looks clear enough to University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach, an author in the area of national-security law. The political objective, he says, would depend on the evidence. Inferring one from the act may not be enough to prove a terrorist motive existed ...

On the other hand, if charges are easier to prove and the sentencing is more severe under non-terrorism charges, I'd be comfortable with doing more time without fitting the pigeonhole of "terrorism".  Those that believe it is will call it that regardless of legal definitions, and people who don't think so never will.

 

[Kirkhill]

Similar problems with "hate" crimes.  The discernment of what is in the culprit's head remains as inexact a science as when entrails were being examined for clues.

It is hard enough to distinguish between manslaughter and murder.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I agree that terrorism charges would have been appropriate for the mosque shooter.

Until such time as a motivation has been determined for the Las Vegas a-hole's crime, terming it as "terrorism" would be completely inappropriate and quite likely wrong.

I agree that the shooter in Las Vegas cannot be called a "terrorist" until it is known if he did his act for political purposes, so backtrack on that point. However, in terms of "quite likely wrong" I'm not so sure. This was pre-meditated and well planned out. Even the waiting for the last act of the last day, from the outside, could indicate that the shooter had some hesitation about what he was going to do. It will be interesting to see what the motive was. But that's for another thread 

 

[mariomike]

Update

QUOTE

April 18, 2018

TORONTO — The 28-year-old man who attacked a mosque in a Quebec City suburb in January 2017 spent hours in front of his computer screen reading about mass shooters and scouring the Twitter accounts of right-wing commentators, alt-right figures, conspiracy theorists and President Trump, according to evidence presented at his sentencing hearing this week.

On Monday, prosecutors revealed a 45-page document itemizing the contents of a computer belonging to the shooter,

Parts of the document, according to the Montreal Gazette, show that Bissonnette — who has appeared in a selfie sporting a red Make America Great Again cap — searched for President Trump a total of 819 times across Twitter, Google, YouTube and Facebook. Bissonnette paid particular attention to the president’s Twitter feed, which he searched for 417 times.

Bissonnette also appears to have obsessively visited the Twitter accounts of Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, Fox News personalities; David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan; Alex Jones of Infowars; conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich; Richard Spencer, the white nationalist; and senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. Bissonnette checked in on the Twitter account of Ben Shapiro, editor in chief of the conservative news site the Daily Wire, 93 times in the month leading up to the shooting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/?noredirect=on

END QUOTE

 

[kratz]

CTV.ca

The choice to not charge this individual with terrorism is now catching up with the government.

Alexandre Bissonnette's parents ask Prime Minister to stop calling their son a terrorist

The father of Alexandre Bissonnette, the man who committed mass murder at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre two years ago, has asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stop referring to his son as a terrorist.

Alexandre Bissonnette killed six people and injured many more when he walked into a mosque during evening prayers and opened fire in January 2017.

Raymond Bissonnette's letter, which was obtained by Le Journal de Quebec, states that the use of the word terrorist to describe his son is putting his family at risk.

"The day after the crime committed by my son Alexandre Bissonnette at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, you stated categorically: Make no mistake-- this was a terrorist attack. A few days later, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner confirmed that several Canadian politicians had already labelled Alexandre Bissonnette a terrorist," wrote Raymond Bissonnette.

Raymond Bissonnette points out that his son was charged and convicted on six counts of first degree murder, but was never charged with terrorism.

He added that his son's crime was extremely terrible and severe, and that the absence of terrorism charges in no way diminishes the gravity of the crime "but it has no link to terrorism or to any particular ideology."

More at link.

 

[brihard]

I wouldn’t say so. Dude’s dad is angry. So what? They raised a monster; too bad.

He wasn’t charged with terrorism offenses because it would have needlessly complicated a very straightforward prosecution for multiple counts of murder. Terrorism offenses are most useful where there are not other more serious substantive offenses to prosecute, e.g. we can prove some dude provided material support to a terrorist organization or travelled to work for one but we cannot pin a murder or an attack to him.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.

It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.

 

[brihard]

Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.

It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.

Yup, but there’s additional considerations when pursuing terrorism related criminal charges. Given the strength of the very clear cut multiple murder charges, to lay additional charges of terrorism offenses would have needlessly complicated and lengthened prosecution with no real additional benefit to the public interest.

 

[Haggis]

Generally what I use to distinguish "terrorism" from mere "criminality" is a political element.

It's hard not to see a political element in an attack on an Islamic cultural centre.

I see no political element in this at all.  I see an act of religious and cultural hatred carried out by a criminal to sow fear in a segment of the public.  Is that terrorism?  Yes, according to the Criminal Code. (S 83.01(b)(i) and (ii)(A)).  Does one have to be convicted of terrorism to be a terrorist?  No.

In my mind, their son is a terrorist, pure and simple.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cultural friction (culture includes religion) is a political element.  I see a political element; so, yeah, I think he's a terrorist.  But my rule of thumb is only that, and subject to exceptions.  If the point of something is to induce action by fear/terrorism rather than to obtain some sort of mundane personal gratification or gain, then it's terrorism.  It's just that I find very little of the action terrorists try to induce is really apolitical.