Talk:Terrorism in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] FLQ
I note that User:SimonP has moved this page back to the international terrorist attacks title. The reason given in the edit summary is that the "intent of the page" is to avoid listing hundreds of FLQ attacks. I do not see the motivation for this, if a list of terrorist attacks is encyclopedic, why are those not encyclopedic. If the concern is that they will overwhelm the article, just make a section for them below the list of non-FLQ attacks. I plan to move the article back, but will wait a bit as a courtesy if there is any desire for talk page discussion. -- cmh 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keeping them separate in a separate section of this article would be fine, but an entirely new article listing attacks by domestic terrorist groups, would, in my opinion, be better. - SimonP 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would strongly prefer having two sections within the same article. As we are seeing already, the recent arrests are being added to this international list (even though it is primarily a homegrown terrorist situation). I think the potential for confusion is too high with specific articles. I'm going to move the page back, and divide the article into domestic and international sections. -- cmh 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- What about the terrorist acts staged by the illegal wing of the RCMP prior to its legalization as CSIS, i.e. mailbox bombings, pipe bombs, etc, committed by the Force in the name of the FLQ during the '60s?Skookum1 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would strongly prefer having two sections within the same article. As we are seeing already, the recent arrests are being added to this international list (even though it is primarily a homegrown terrorist situation). I think the potential for confusion is too high with specific articles. I'm going to move the page back, and divide the article into domestic and international sections. -- cmh 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reorg
Ok. I've moved the page to the generic title again. I sorted the items into domestic and international events. Despite the edit comment, the revert point to this version is here. Then I decided that the decade-based subheadings were not the best way to subcategorize the list. Really, the international list can be quite naturally categorized by broad reasons for the attacks. This is the current top level version. At this point, the FLQ and other domestic terrorist incidents can be added. -- cmh 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How about...
How about the 2006 case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.80.79 (talk • contribs) .
- There has been no terrorist attack in Canada in 2006. However, there is a see also link to some recent arrests. This link is ok for now as a pointer to the information available, but likely should go after it is no longer newsworthy. -- cmh 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Freedomite Doukhobours
I don't have the dates, but members of the Sons of Freedom faction of the Doukhobours were responsible for bombing powerlines in BC's Kootenay districts in the late 1950s or early 1960s; their motives were even more Luddite than the Squamish Five and maybe "terrorism" isn't quite the right word - terrorism is meant to sow fear; the Freedomites were trying to destroy the works of Mammon rather than pursue an ideology meant to overthrow the state through a campaign of fear. Still, they were treated as terrorists (a word not quite invented yet at the time) and indicted for (I think) sedition as well as the direct charges relating to the bombings. It can also be argued that their campaigns of arson and other property-destruction directed at fellow Doukhobours were also terrorist in nature, though communal in scope (such arsons were to remind those who strayed from the pure anabaptist path that their material possesions meant nothing); such arsons were also committed against their own property to protest against forced enrollment of Doukhobour children in government schools, and paying taxes and all the other trappings of material civilization/culture; these were also the motives behind the powerline bombings (there were plots to blow up one of the Columbia River Treaty dam projects, too; I think it was the Duncan Dam). The conspirators/culprits were interned at Kent Institution, then Agassiz Mountain Prison, and their followers established a huge tarpaper-shack camp outside the prison gates (which I remember visiting as my father had some reason to visit their leader, probably to do with BC Hydro business, which he was regional production superinetendant for).Skookum1 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
A book on WAC Bennet and the history of BC also describes the Doukabours as having committed terrorist acts during that time period. NFW 29Jul06
[edit] Why include École Polytechnique shootings?
Is there a source for describing the 1989 École Polytechnique shootings as a "terrorist" attack? The article on Marc Lépine does not use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism". If this incident is included, why not include other hate crimes, such as incidents of gay-bashing or vandalism of synagogues and mosques? --Mathew5000 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like it either, but there's feminist sources that would have no problem describing the Ecol Polytechnique shootings as "terrorism" by a man against women. I don't have those cites, and am not interested in reading more man-bashing ("typical of men's abuses of women" and the like, i.e. about the shootings), but there's no doubt they exist. But I'm not sure they would validate including the "Second Valentine's Day Massacre" (as I remember this once being called, not because of the day it happened on but because of the annual memorial services on V-Day) as "terrorism".Skookum1 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article on Lépine says "Lépine left behind a three-page letter claiming feminists had ruined his life. It also contained a virtual hit list of nineteen high-profile Quebec women whom he apparently wanted to kill, and expressed his admiration of Denis Lortie, who had killed three Quebec government employees in 1984.". Also the fact that his was an anti-feminist attack is relevant. The article on Terrorism suggests (under Lone Wolf section) "A single individual commits an act of terrorism if the target is civilians and the purpose is to effect a political or ideological change. Such an individual may or may not identify himself with some group.". I think he's relevant given the low number of domestic terrorists. I do think some organized gay-bashing or anti-jew groups may also be relevant in some cases... I'd have to think more about that. -- cmh 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Myself I wasn't meaning that his anti-feminist agenda was an issue when I mentioned feminist accounts; I was referring simply to the language typical of those accounts, and as stated feminist theorists do consider this (and other attacks on women) as "gender terrorism". They never met my mean older sister, though ;-)Skookum1 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Having done some thinking about it, I still think Lépine is relevant. However, it may well be a weak example of terrorism — because there's nothing to prove that he was trying to make political points by killing innocents, we are left with the alternate explanation that his goal was simply to find random women to eliminate. I think his notes and yelling about feminists lends support to the terrorist view, and I'm sure sources can be found to support this. However, if others reach consensus that it's wrong that he's on the list I would be comfortable with its removal. -- cmh 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The 'lone wolf' terrorism and 'feminist' opinions on terrorism are just that - opinions. The definitions for terrorism and terrorist were defined long ago and, despite a variety of arguments over who is and is not a terrorist or a terrorist organization, the following rules apply; two or more persons form a non-government organization; development of a theological or political goal in opposition to the current ruling government; use of violent force or a threat to use violent force; and, acts of violence against indirect targets. Any acts with only one person are regarded as criminal acts. Regarding certain proponents of the feminist movement, their use of the term is politically motivated. Misuse of the term 'terrorism' for political purposes does not mean the rest of the world has to agree with their definition. NFW 29Jul06.
I removed Lépine from the list. This article is not the proper place to make the argument for "gender terrorism". (There is also no mention of "terrorism" on the Marc Lépine article).Drcwright 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
