• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Member of Canadian Forces Arrested in incident at Rideau Hall

He attempted to.
No. Nowhere is it alleged that he tried to murder the PM. The court record and his own admission is that he wanted to ‘arrest’ the PM - I.e., abduct / confine / hold him hostage.

Fairness compels us to be accurate about the facts, and what dumb shit he did but also did not do. Athough he caused a scary day for some really good cops, he didn’t threaten them or offer them violence, he didn’t try to fight his way through to the PM (though he was well equipped to). All the evidence we’re privy to is that he intended basically an abduction, but that the only death he envisioned in the end game was his own.
 
He wasn't charged with Terrorism, that point is null and void

So, only persons actually charged with a terrorism offence have engaged in terrorist activity?

I am pretty certain he did what he did out of desperation on the verge of loosing everything he worked for. He had a mental break down and thought this was the way to get word out that he and many others were at the end of their rope so to speak. He went about totally wrong, but in proportion of other offences by criminals he was hit pretty hard with his sentence.

And much the same could be said about any number of losers who have committed horrendous acts (and some who did less horrendous acts) and subsequently been labeled "terrorist".

Can you provide me with a definition of terrorism under the Criminal Code of Canada?

I'll let you do you own research, it's easily found.

The charging of a sole individual (i.e., Lone Wolf) with a terrorism offence has never happened in Canada and is unlikely to happen due to the way the law is currently written even if the perpetrator's action "could" meet the CC definition of terrorist activity (and remained alive following the resolution of the incident). Most of the terrorism offences relate to actions involved in the planning of and support of groups.

In Hurren's case, his action "could" meet the definition. If they had so charged him (unlikely) and had been convicted of the same offences to which he pleaded guilty (he likely would not have so pleaded in that case), he could have then been liable to a much greater punishment.

Punishment for terrorist activity
  • 83.27 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person convicted of an indictable offence, other than an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed as a minimum punishment, where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, is liable to imprisonment for life.
 
Last edited:
No one wanted to offer Hurren a plea deal?
The sentence he got was his plea deal. A whole bunch of additional weapons charges, and one of threatening the PM, went away. Probably Stays of Proceedings on those ones. His guilty plea was cited by the judge as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
 
The charging of a sole individual (i.e., Lone Wolf) with a terrorism offence has never happened in Canada and is unlikely to happen due to the way the law is currently written even if the perpetrator's action "could" meet the CC definition of terrorist activity (and remained alive following the resolution of the incident). Most of the terrorism offences relate to actions involved in the planning of and support of groups.

A correction.

I was in error. There were terrorism charges laid against a "lone-wolf"; coincidentally with a CAF connection and was discussed on this means. I refer to the 2016 knife attack at the Toronto CFRC. The individual responsible was charged with "nine counts of committing indictable offences “for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group” contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. The indictable offences underlying those nine counts are three allegations of attempted murder (counts 1, 2 and 3), two allegations of assault causing bodily harm (counts 4 and 5), three allegations of assault with a weapon (counts 6, 7 and 8) and one allegation of carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence (count 9). With the consent of the Crown, the defendant re-elected to be tried by a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury, and he entered pleas of not guilty to all counts."

He was however found not guilty of all those counts, the reasons for which are found in https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc2838/2018onsc2838.html
 
So, only persons actually charged with a terrorism offence have engaged in terrorist activity?
If there was no mention of it from the Police or Courts then it is not considered so.
If you want to go out on a limb we can consider all types of acts terrorism under the CCC, Which may include the actions and words of the sitting MP and his followers. But he has not been charged under the act so at this point it is null and void.
And much the same could be said about any number of losers who have committed horrendous acts (and some who did less horrendous acts) and subsequently been labeled "terrorist".
Many people have bene labeled as such, lots of them have involved the killing of civilians and or direct involvement with Known Terrorist entities
I'll let you do you own research, it's easily found.
The actual definition is not as easy to find as one would lead you to think.
The charging of a sole individual (i.e., Lone Wolf) with a terrorism offence has never happened in Canada and is unlikely to happen due to the way the law is currently written even if the perpetrator's action "could" meet the CC definition of terrorist activity (and remained alive following the resolution of the incident). Most of the terrorism offences relate to actions involved in the planning of and support of groups.
Nov 17, 2022 — Today, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announces the laying of terrorism charges against Gérald Nicolas
In Hurren's case, his action "could" meet the definition. If they had so charged him (unlikely) and had been convicted of the same offences to which he pleaded guilty (he likely would not have so pleaded in that case), he could have then been liable to a much greater punishment.
 
The sentence he got was his plea deal. A whole bunch of additional weapons charges, and one of threatening the PM, went away. Probably Stays of Proceedings on those ones. His guilty plea was cited by the judge as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
That's a wild difference in charges and outcomes.
 
Back
Top