[Shodan]

Alta. Anti-Terror unit planned
New RCMP team to combat foreign and homegrown extremists

Elise Stolte
The Edmonton Journal

Monday, January 19, 2009

RCMP plan to establish an anti-terrorism unit for Alberta, similar to the one investigating the EnCana pipeline bombings near Dawson Creek, B.C.

The 40 to 45 members would be based in Edmonton and Calgary. They would guard against both international al-Qaida-style terrorists as well as home-grown radicals, says Asst. Commissioner Bob Paulson with the RCMP's Ottawa-based National Security and Criminal Investigations.

Paulson said there is no specific threat. "Certainly, the oilsands and the pipelines are as viable a target in Alberta as they are in British Columbia or as the nuclear plants are in Central Canada."

The units, or Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams, are in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. An Alberta unit will be set up "as soon as possible," pending negotiations for an extra $3 million, Paulson said.

Officers would be dedicated to old-fashioned surveillance and detective work. They would also try to build relationships in various communities to ensure disaffected youth are not recruited.

"As I've heard others say, we can't arrest our way out of the terrorism threat. We have to prevent the threat from growing," Paulson said.

The team would work closely with municipal police forces.

Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd is on the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police counter-terrorism committee. He spent a week at Harvard University in November, studying the roots of home-grown radicalism with 39 other policing experts.

"I don't see that any part of Canada can be nonchalant," he said.

Environmental, animal rights and abortion issues as well as tensions relating to political clashes around the world can easily ignite long-standing frustrations here, he said, pointing to the recent passionate demonstrations about the conflict in Gaza as a case in point.

"We can't bury our head in the sand," he said. "Edmonton is one of Canada's major cities."

Last Saturday, 1,000 protesters held pictures of injured children and chanted: "Stop the holocaust in Gaza."

Boyd said most of those who go on to commit acts of terrorism start out simply as angry young men. Identifying why they are angry is an essential part of dealing with the threat, he said. As with countering gangs, officers, parents and community members need to focus on finding the fringe players and helping them move away from those who would draw them into violence.

Mahamad Accord, a leader in the local Somali community, would welcome help from police.

For the past couple months, in the wake of several violent deaths in their community, community leaders have started ongoing meetings with Boyd. They hope to reach out to the RCMP also, Accord said.

Feelings of alienation among Somali youth have led to a lot of frustration. They are vulnerable to being recruited, and not just to gangs, he said.

Ever since last October, when a Minnesota man left his family without a word and blew himself up in northern Somalia, mothers have been coming to Accord with concerns about letting their children attend mosques.

They want their children to learn their religion, but "what happened in Minnesota heightened the sensitivity of our community," he said. "We don't have a culture of suicide, but somehow when people are frustrated, they are capable of anything."

estolte@thejournal.canwest.com
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=10830440-6b96-405c-a81f-4e9d63e1a74d&sponsor=
_______________________________________________________

What's everyone's take on this? :shrug:

[freeweed]

We need a threat-colour indicator, NOW.

Just came back from Florida where they continually announced at the airport that the threat level was "orange", which as I recall is higher than "yellow". Of course, they don't say anything whatsoever about what you're supposed to actually do, so it's an entirely meaningless system, but hey - more government bureaucracy that does nothing productive is always good!

(Yet another Canadian who just can't wait for Obama to get in power...)

PS: the vast, vast majority of terrorism and extremism in North America is still perpetuated by white Christians, but hey - it's those mosques that we need to talk about, yessiree-bob!

I so hate xenophobia and I'd really prefer we don't import any more into Canada.

[DizzyEdge]

Yes.... if they also go after gangs.

[Stang]

I agree that we're more likely to see homegrown "terrorism" (the word is so overused these days I hate to even use it) than anything else. Weibo, the latest Encana bombings, etc.

I think an investigative, covert approach is the best (only?) was to deal with this type of thing.

I agree with freeweed about the colour scale thing. It does nothing to prevent terrorism - it just keeps people paranoid because of a perceived threat and more willing to support "the war on terror".

[Surrealplaces]

The whole color alert thing is stupid IMO. You really can't change your daily routine based on the color warning, I mean what exactly are people supposed to do? It's red today, so I'm staying home from work??

[canlefty]

As much as I hate all the gang shootings as of recent... the whole scheme is just a bit too American for me.

[frinkprof]

Alta. Anti-Terror unit planned
New RCMP team to combat foreign and homegrown extremists

Elise Stolte
The Edmonton Journal

Monday, January 19, 2009

RCMP plan to establish an anti-terrorism unit for Alberta, similar to the one investigating the EnCana pipeline bombings near Dawson Creek, B.C.

The 40 to 45 members would be based in Edmonton and Calgary. They would guard against both international al-Qaida-style terrorists as well as home-grown radicals, says Asst. Commissioner Bob Paulson with the RCMP's Ottawa-based National Security and Criminal Investigations.

Paulson said there is no specific threat. "Certainly, the oilsands and the pipelines are as viable a target in Alberta as they are in British Columbia or as the nuclear plants are in Central Canada."

...

"As I've heard others say, we can't arrest our way out of the terrorism threat. We have to prevent the threat from growing," Paulson said.

...

The bolded parts don't really jive to me.

Also, his name was Robert Paulson... his name......

[Kevin_foster]

"Color" indicators seem to inject more fear than terrorists themselves.

Assigning a threat level is a stupid idea. Sure, maybe within the government realm only known to those who rule; but not the general public.

Maybe it's just me, but creating fear to fight... what some would call, a minimal threat, but we will call it "fear" for this argument- is deranged, imo

[jeffwhit]

Yes.... if they also go after gangs.

Then why not just create a a Gang unit at the local or RCMP level?

[Riise]

Then why not just create a a Gang unit at the local or RCMP level?

Apparently, fighting terrorism sounds cooler than fighting gang related-crime and will boost Alberta's street cred. Also, we can spend money to send representatives to international conferences to speak about how we're fighting terrorism regionally. As bad a rep that the colour system gets I'm actually in favour of it, BUT only if everyday I get a popsicle that is the same colour as the current threat level. I hope there's a purple threat level, grape is my favourite!!!

[e909]

The color coded system isn't that bad of an idea, actually. When the Government needs to operate on elevated security processes, it should have a clear and consistent way of communicating that.

Whether or not the color coded system needs to be as public as it is.. is probably up for debate.

[Calgarian]

Every time I hear the word terrorism I think of the movie Zeitgeist. lol, that movie has me almost convinced it's all BS. Good watch if you havent seen it.

[Skeletor]

Every time I hear the word terrorism I think of the movie Zeitgeist. lol, that movie has me almost convinced it's all BS. Good watch if you havent seen it.

I hear ya! My personal feelings are that the truth lies somewhere in between the official statements and what the tinfoil hat guys say. I'm certain the threat level color code thing is just there to keep the populace scared enough to continue supporting the wars and the bodies that approve the massive amounts of spending involved, even if the actual motive behind the wars isn't entirely as dark and sinister as the conspiracy guys would have you think. There is really no point to it... like Surrealplaces said, what do you do when it's red? Everyone stays home? Shut down the country for a day? That would be worse economically than anything related to 9/11 has been, and would you really save any lives, or would the terrorists just wait until things went back to normal... the next day or the next week or whatever, then BAM!!

[NumberFive]

Every time I hear the word terrorism I think of the movie Zeitgeist. lol, that movie has me almost convinced it's all BS. Good watch if you havent seen it.

You know, I watched that and was really into it... then I saw the 2nd one that came out a while back... unfortunately, that one took everything way too far in my opinion, and simply based on the 2nd movie they made, they lost all credibility to me.

[freeweed]

Every time I hear the word terrorism I think of the movie Zeitgeist. lol, that movie has me almost convinced it's all BS. Good watch if you havent seen it.

This should be required viewing for every human being. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares)

[O-tacular]

Remember when Calgary hosted the G-8 summit and everyone was paranoid there would be terrorists or riots? Chretien shipped all the delgates out to Banff, or was it Kananaskis and the whole thing went off without a hitch. I guess forests and bears are better defenses against terrorism than the army.

[Vascilli]

I see no need for a dedicated anti-terror unit. Giving more training to existing police units would make more sense.

[O-tacular]

How about a 'polygamy terror alert' system as that seems to be the latest news fodder of the day. I remember when I was at the Colorado airport and they had news bulletins about Warren Jeffs being at large. "Ahhh! He's coming to marry your daughters to old perverts! Everyone run for your lives!"

[Vascilli]

I see no need for a dedicated anti-terror unit. Giving more training to existing police units would make more sense.

Or, legalize concealed carry for those with no criminal record and a PAL/restricted license. Guns and training are paid for by the people riding it. Ta da, self-sufficient security. :tup:

*This is a pipe dream.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Umm, yeah. Because places with more guns are more secure. Even if they prevented crime (they don't) the amount of deaths from accidents would more than make up for any other potential gain.

Plus, this already exists, if you really really really need it, or can justify it. It is called Authorization to Carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_to_Carry). Here is the application form

[/URL] [URL="http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/pdfs/680_e.pdf"]Application for an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/680_e.pdf)

[Vascilli]

Umm, yeah. Because places with more guns are more secure. Even if they prevented crime (they don't) the amount of deaths from accidents would more than make up for any other potential gain.

Plus, this already exists, if you really really really need it, or can justify it. It is called Authorization to Carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_to_Carry). Here is the application form

[/URL] [URL="http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/pdfs/680_e.pdf"]Application for an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/680_e.pdf)

Yeah I'd never be able to get one of those. Nor would almost anyone who doesn't drive an armored car or work in trapping. Maybe I'll apply just to see if I can get one. :hmmm:

[freeweed]

Umm, yeah. Because places with more guns are more secure. Even if they prevented crime (they don't) the amount of deaths from accidents would more than make up for any other potential gain.

Well, Canada has more guns per capita than the US, and we're far more secure in just about every sense.

Still never understood why an urban resident would possibly want to carry around deadly force, however. I guess when someone in a turban starts screaming and running at me, I could take them out and stop terror.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

I could say Canadians having more long guns per capita (and even then I am doubtful), but in total? no.

Stats anywhere?

[Vascilli]

I could say Canadians having more long guns per capita (and even then I am doubtful), but in total? no.

Stats anywhere?

Statcan shows nothing but articles about gun crime and the like. Ugh.. trying to find anything on a government website is impossible.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Yeah so no....

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828?sp=true)

Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:57pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070828&t=2&i=1367046&w=192&r=2007-08-28T175721Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:launchArticleSlideshow%28%29;) http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/btn_inlineslide_prev.gifhttp://www.reuters.com/resources/images/btn_inlineslide_next.gif1 of 2Full Size (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:launchArticleSlideshow%28%29;)

By Laura MacInnis
GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.
India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.
Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil and Russia were next in the ranking of country's overall civilian gun arsenals.
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.
"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.
"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth, and that means we need to think about future demand in parts of the world where economic growth is giving people larger disposable income," he told a Geneva news conference.
The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.
Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.
"Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.
Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

[Vascilli]

I'll be raising that stat in two years.

[Skeletor]

I'll be raising that stat in two years.

Why 2 years?

[Vascilli]

Why 2 years?

I'm (almost) 16. Come 2011 I'll have my RPAL and some fun stuff. :tup:

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

I am pretty sure the next non conservative government will stop all new legal acquisition of restricted firearms. Only grandfathered ones and collectibles.

Eventually, only long guns will exist legally in private hands (a generation or two)

[Vascilli]

I am pretty sure the next non conservative government will stop all new legal acquisition of restricted firearms. Only grandfathered ones and collectibles.

Eventually, only long guns will exist legally in private hands (a generation or two)

That's why I'm probably gonna load up on restricteds, so I can be cool. :haha:

[Skeletor]

I'm (almost) 16. Come 2011 I'll have my RPAL and some fun stuff. :tup:

Ah, I see! I have been thinking about going to get my PAL as well. Growing up, my Dad always had a number of guns, and we used to go shooting quite often, or for the odd hunt. I was never much of a hunter though.. I always prefered to shoot tin cans instead of living animals. The last guns that I remember us having were a .30-30, a .30-06, a Winchester 12 Ga. double barrel over/under (that one was my favorite), and a couple of 12 Ga. pumps, but then when the gun registry came into effect, my Dad sold all the guns because he didn't want to bother registering them. It wasn't a problem then, as all my friends and their fathers that lived on farms had the requisite gun collection to fulfill my shooting needs, but now it's been a number of years. Video games and pellet guns are just not the same as the real thing! I know the anti-gun nuts will call me crazy, but there was always something that made me feel a little bit safer at night knowing that that 12 Guage was just sitting over in the closet. :shrug:

[Vascilli]

Ah, I see! I have been thinking about going to get my PAL as well. Growing up, my Dad always had a number of guns, and we used to go shooting quite often, or for the odd hunt. I was never much of a hunter though.. I always prefered to shoot tin cans instead of living animals. The last guns that I remember us having were a .30-30, a .30-06, a Winchester 12 Ga. double barrel over/under (that one was my favorite), and a couple of 12 Ga. pumps, but then when the gun registry came into effect, my Dad sold all the guns because he didn't want to bother registering them. It wasn't a problem then, as all my friends and their fathers that lived on farms had the requisite gun collection to fulfill my shooting needs, but now it's been a number of years. Video games and pellet guns are just not the same as the real thing! I know the anti-gun nuts will call me crazy, but there was always something that made me feel a little bit safer at night knowing that that 12 Guage was just sitting over in the closet. :shrug:

Just go get it. :yes: At least your dad took you shooting, mine never has and I'm 99% sure he never will. All we have for guns that I know about is a rifle of some sort in Sweden sitting in a closet. In fact, the only real shooting I've ever done was with a .22 during a biathlon course.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

That's why I'm probably gonna load up on restricteds, so I can be cool. :haha:
The Tory's will be long gone before your 18, sorry bud.

No problem with long guns however, which are plenty fine for hunting, target shooting.

There may also be a class of guns where you can own a restricted weapon but it can never leave a gun club, except for passage to other gun clubs by secure courier.

[Skeletor]

I am pretty sure the next non conservative government will stop all new legal acquisition of restricted firearms. Only grandfathered ones and collectibles.

Eventually, only long guns will exist legally in private hands (a generation or two)

Ridiculous. People don't murder with registered guns.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

People steal registered guns, then murder people.

[Vascilli]

People steal registered guns, then murder people.

Gun safes, they're a good thing to have..

[freeweed]

Gun safes, they're a good thing to have..

Living without lethal weapons is a better thing to have.

Of course, I grew up around guns and don't have a huge problem with them (beyond the fact that I don't get the point). I'd have no problem with just about zero gun control laws under one condition: you use a gun to commit crime, and you go away. For life. Throw away the key, and you get to do hard labour to pay back society for your stupidity.

Well, that and an automatic lifetime ban on anyone who ever has a gun stolen because they didn't use the aforementioned safe.

[Skeletor]

Living without lethal weapons is a better thing to have.

Of course, I grew up around guns and don't have a huge problem with them (beyond the fact that I don't get the point). I'd have no problem with just about zero gun control laws under one condition: you use a gun to commit crime, and you go away. For life. Throw away the key, and you get to do hard labour to pay back society for your stupidity.

Well, that and an automatic lifetime ban on anyone who ever has a gun stolen because they didn't use the aforementioned safe.

I think that is the way we need to go rather than whipping out the banhammer. Bans in general are generally knee-jerk reactions to symptoms of problems that nobody wants to think hard enough about to find real solutions.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

In Toronto in I believe 2006 4 guns were stolen from a collector, that a gang had tracked down after showing them a collector show. 2 guns were subsequently used in homicides.

There is no reason to own a restricted weapon except for target shooting (except for the occasions that already warrant carry permits today). Ergo, does someone need a restricted weapon anywhere other than a target range (unless is is permanently disabled)?

[Skeletor]

When somebody with a gun wants to kill you, and the police won't do anything about it until after they shoot you, I'd say that's pretty good reason to want to own one.

As far as public safety goes, your stats above show, if anything, that gun homicide rates have no correlation at all with either total gun ownership or per-capita gun ownership. Unless of course Finland and Switzerland have crazy gun homicide rates that I'm not aware of. You could make a case about the US, but their gun problem is more of a societal and cultural issue than it is a weapons issue.

Anyhow, I don't want to get drawn into a gun control debate on SSP. You're probably right that in a civilized society there is no need for lethal weapons. I've never had much need myself. But the problem is, we don't live in a civilized society. We pretend that we do, but we don't. Criminals will always have guns, no matter what controls are put in place. The general public will always be at their mercy. Every time we restrict what law-abiding citizens can do, we give criminals more power.

[freeweed]

When somebody with a gun wants to kill you, and the police won't do anything about it until after they shoot you, I'd say that's pretty good reason to want to own one.

And when that situation is a concern for more than one innocent person a year in this city, who is actually capable of defending themselves with a firearm, I might be willing to worry about it.

For every person who's ever been in that situation, there are thousands who have been at equal risk from motor vehicles. From bar fights. From being beat up by a spouse. From a million other things that we as a society tolerate to a large degree - or at least, we don't start packing lethal weapons to try to prevent them.

And for every person who's faced death with a gun, there are a dozen or more kids who've accidentally shot themselves or others because their parents had this silly paranoia about something that for all intents and purposes, might as well never happen.

Our society is a lot more civilized when it comes to gun violence than people seem to realize. I grew up in a hunting town - for every "OMG innocent shot in Calgary's gang wars!!!" news story, there are 10 or 20 hunting accidents equally as bad. It just wasn't front page news, because it happened all the time.

The reason you hear so much about gun violence in Calgary is because it is EXTREMELY FREAKING RARE. Hell, even Toronto has basically zero gun violence compared to just about every other bad thing that could happen to a person.