Except whether a group is or isn't a terrorist organization isn't determined by emotion and virtue signaling, nor is it parliament's business. If a group fits a certain criteria, they're defined as a terrorist organization. Period.
Canada's definition of terrorism:
In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."
You could debatably argue that the Proud Boys satisfy that, since some of them were at the capitol hill riot. But if you did, you'd also have to list BLM and Antifa as terrorist organizations on the same grounds - because they're politically motived, and they riot.
In reality though, no reasonable person would interpret a riot as terrorism. It's never been interpreted it that way before. It's only being called that in this case for blatantly partisan reasons.
It'll be interesting to see if the gov't chooses to label a handful of rioters "terrorists" just because they happen to be white (not white supremacists/nationalists, just white people). It'll show us how deep the partisan corruption runs in our government.
Every single member of the parliament supported the motion.
Yes, but unhinged stupidity is expected of elected officials engaged in partisan politics and electioneering. The permanent public service is supposed to be more sane and grounded.
Oh and the only reason the motion was tabled was to try and bait the Conservatives into voting against it, so the Liberals and their MSM mouthpieces could then campaign on "The CPC voted AGAINST listing a white supremacist terrorist organization as terrorists!".
The CPC responded by employing the same strategy I've been telling you guys about for years - just sidestep the "Muh racism" debate altogether. It's not a fight you can win when the MSM and silicon valley are on the LPC's side.
Seriously, what are the CPC supposed to do here? Defend the proud boys and try to convince the public "They're not really white supremacist's."?
The media have already convinced the public that they are white supremacists. And they're not going to let you sway the public on that, since they MSM control the narrative. It's just not the hill you want to die on. Not when you know it's an unwinnable debate because the playing field is slanted.
Yeah, I agree with your points. But I think that there wasn't even a discussion within the CPC to go against this motion. It feels like that there are people in the CPC which even would write such a motion.
BLM and Antifa as terrorist organizations on the same grounds - because they're politically motived, and they riot
Yes, this is pure virtue signalling. Also, many unions, environmentalist, and aboriginal activists are far more violent than those at the capital hill riot. But violence with the blessing of the left seems immune to prosecution.
Except whether a group is or isn't a terrorist organization isn't determined by emotion and virtue signaling, nor is it parliament's business. If a group fits a certain criteria, they're defined as a terrorist organization. Period.
Canada's definition of terrorism:
You could debatably argue that the Proud Boys satisfy that, since some of them were at the capitol hill riot. But if you did, you'd also have to list BLM and Antifa as terrorist organizations on the same grounds - because they're politically motived, and they riot.
In reality though, no reasonable person would interpret a riot as terrorism. It's never been interpreted it that way before. It's only being called that in this case for blatantly partisan reasons.
It'll be interesting to see if the gov't chooses to label a handful of rioters "terrorists" just because they happen to be white (not white supremacists/nationalists, just white people). It'll show us how deep the partisan corruption runs in our government.
A lot of Conservative people call BLM a terror group because of this reason.
It will? They showed us with this vote. Every single member of the parliament supported the motion.
Yes, but unhinged stupidity is expected of elected officials engaged in partisan politics and electioneering. The permanent public service is supposed to be more sane and grounded.
Oh and the only reason the motion was tabled was to try and bait the Conservatives into voting against it, so the Liberals and their MSM mouthpieces could then campaign on "The CPC voted AGAINST listing a white supremacist terrorist organization as terrorists!".
The CPC responded by employing the same strategy I've been telling you guys about for years - just sidestep the "Muh racism" debate altogether. It's not a fight you can win when the MSM and silicon valley are on the LPC's side.
Seriously, what are the CPC supposed to do here? Defend the proud boys and try to convince the public "They're not really white supremacist's."?
The media have already convinced the public that they are white supremacists. And they're not going to let you sway the public on that, since they MSM control the narrative. It's just not the hill you want to die on. Not when you know it's an unwinnable debate because the playing field is slanted.
Yeah, I agree with your points. But I think that there wasn't even a discussion within the CPC to go against this motion. It feels like that there are people in the CPC which even would write such a motion.
What would be the point? It's going to pass with or without the Conservative's votes.
This was bait, and the CPC didn't take it.
Yes, this is pure virtue signalling. Also, many unions, environmentalist, and aboriginal activists are far more violent than those at the capital hill riot. But violence with the blessing of the left seems immune to prosecution.