In Their Own Words: Harsha Walia on the Black Bloc

Those familiar with left-wing rhetoric know full well that "diversity of tactics" is, essentially, a code phrase for violence. A "diversity of tactics" is an action in which violent tactics are tolerated alongside non-violent tactics.

As Harsha Walia of No One is Illegal points out, the Black Bloc tactic is not as marginal among the far-left as many would prefer we believe. Organizers of actions such as the "2010 Heart Attack" anti-Olympic rally communicate with the Black Bloc about their participation in these activities, and even seem to know who the Black Bloc are.

Most damningly, Walia explains that the far-left uses the terrorist activities of the Black Bloc -- and that's very much what the Black Bloc's activities are -- as cover in order to divert scrutiny from non-violent protest tactics.

Walia concludes by insisting that the Black Bloc's allies on the far-left are obligated to publicly keep silent about the Black Bloc's activities.

No Tears For Alex Hundert

Black Bloc terrorist sympathizers decry alleged injustice

Across Canada yesterday, small handfuls of Canadians rallied in support of a terrorist.

For those whom the face of terrorism is a militant Muslim extremist, they would do well to reevaluate that image. As in this case, the terrorist in question is Alex Hundert, who is responsible for organizing numerous Black Bloc protests across Canada.

Predictably, Hundert's sympathizers decried the injustice of his incarceration. They claim that Canada is oppressing him, regardless of the facts.

“I’ve organized alongside Alex for about four years now. It’s personal for me that my friend is being arrested by police after being at a panel,” whined activist Chelsea Taylor. “They are really ratcheting up the levels of police harassment and intimidation.”

Of course what Taylor declines to mention is that Hundert's arrest isn't a case of "police harassment" or "intimidation".

In fact it was the Black Bloc Hundert helped organize who intimidated fellow protesters and bystanders during the G20 riots. Arresting them is not a case of "police harassment", it's a simple matter of gettinging criminals and terrorists off of Canada's streets.

And what a shame that is. Not.

Unshockingly, Hundert himself continues to try to pass off his disingenuous claim that he's been repressed.

"Too much attention has been paid to a small number of cases of repression, particularly my own, when people need to be focused on and fighting back against broader patterns of oppression that flow from the racist capitalist system propagated by the G20 states, their corporations, their militaries, and their police," Hundert is reported to have recently said to "an ally".

Of course for Hundert to claim that he's being repressed is brazenly mendacious. He has been in the practice of organizing violent political protests designed to intimidate Canadians. That is the definition of terrorism.

Moreover, Hundert's protests have also been designed to provoke violent police response. It's unfortunate that the mismanagement of the G20 riot by law enforcement eventually led to unacceptable responses. In that regard, Hundert got what he wanted.

But whether his supporters like it or not, Hundert seems to have done the crime. Now it's time for him to do the time. This time around he's declined bail, which is a good thing: it keeps him in jail where he belongs.

Now all that remains to be done is to ensure that Alex Hundert is sentenced to as much time as the Canadian justice system allows. Alex Hundert belongs in jail, and it's up to the courts to make sure that he stays there -- and his followers can just go right ahead and cry the rest of Canada a river.

You Mean Like This? Still No?

Canadian Muslim Congress denounces radical Islam

In the wake of arrests involving a suspected terror cell in Ottawa, various Canadian bloggers have called for Canadian Muslims to denounce terrorism.

The Canadian Muslim Congress has done precisely that.

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise," says the CMC's Raheel Raza. "We have a problem."

"There is a serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth and if we don't address this now, it can culminate into something dangerous," Raza continues. "We have to stand up and tackle this."

Raza doesn't seem to be concerned that her admissions of concern would attract attention from Islamophobes.

"There are always going to be bigots, we can't stop speaking out against radicalization just because we are afraid of a few bigots and hate-mongers," she continues. "Those people who are sensible ... will understand what we are talking about."

This comes hot on the heels of a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams denouncing radical Islam -- one that was met with cynicism by Canadian critics of Islam.

Sadly, it's unlikely that Raheel Raza's concern about the radicalization of Muslim youths -- and her organization's efforts to stop it -- will be met with similar cynicism.

Bravo, Canadian Arts Community

Way to justify all that public arts funding

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his attention to cut arts funding from Canada's budget during the 2008 election, his Conservative Party took what was actually a well-deserved dip in the polls.

Frequently a target of conservative thinkers, public arts funding provides a vital life line to cultural works that help develop and promote Canadian culture and identity.

But to say that governments of varying levels have a role in financially supporting arts isn't to say that arts and culture should be funded indiscriminately. The funding being indirectly extended to Homegrown, a terrorist-sympathizing play about Toronto 18 terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem stands as a stark example of something that should not have been funded.

According to Catherine Frid, the producer of the play, Homegrown isn't actually a terrorist-sympathizing work.

“Homegrown does not promote, sanction or excuse terrorism," Frid insists. "It looks at one of the men convicted of terrorism and points out some of the many irregularities in the Canadian criminal justice system that led to his conviction"

"He wasn't planning to blow up Bay and Front Street with a truck bomb," Frid continues. "People don't know the whole story behind Shareef's conviction. I'm not speaking for all the Toronto 18, I'm just focusing on the one person I met and whose case I followed and I'm telling that story."

The problem for Frid is that her assessment doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

When Abdelhaleem was convicted, his defence counsel called no evidence regarding his guilt or innocence, and instead merely tried to argue that he was entrapped. in a subsequent ruling, it was ruled that Abdelhaleem was not entrapped.

The only means by which funding of a particular project can be justified is that it embodies Canadian culture, or promotes Canadian values.

All too often, "Canadian values" are passed off by the far left as a canard. In fact, there are very few values -- conservative or left-wing -- that could be definitively described as Canadian.

But there are some values that definitively are not, and sympathy for terrorism is one of those.

Even as the controversy builds surrounding this play, politicians are already beginning to demonstrate who gets it, and who just doesn't.

In the category of those who don't get it is Toronto City Councillor Adam Vaughn, who insists that government has no place deciding what art is or isn't exhibited.

Which isn't at all what this story is about. Very few people are suggesting that play such as the one Frid is producing shouldn't be exhibited publicly at all. (Some individuals are, and these notions actually are misguided.)

The issue is about what kinds of productions public funds should support.

Toronto City Councillor -- and member of the Toronto Arts Council -- Norm Kelly does get it.

"There is freedom of expression but there is nothing that says there should be freedom of investment," Kelly insists. "Art plays a number of roles in society... but [this play] would be going too far. If the court was correct in its assessment of their intent, I don't see much artistic merit in that portrayal."

Likewise -- as is so often the case -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Kevin Gaudet gets it as well.

“You want to put on a play? Fine. Hang up your shingle and ask people to pay for it," Gaudet said. "If it has to do with sympathetic portraits of terrorists who want to destroy my country, I won’t go."

A great many Canadians won't bother to go see such a play. A steep financial loss incurred by an empty theatre would serve as a stark lesson for individuals such as Frid about how far Canadians are prepared to sympathize with terrorists, home-grown or otherwise.

The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation opposes any and all funding of cultural festivals. In this, they are in error. But in opposing any form of public funding whatsoever for Homegrown, they are right on the money.

Homegrown should not receive a red cent of public funding in support of it. If Catherine Frid cannot provide or secure the money to produce it, it simply doesn't deserve to be made.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Blazing Cat Fur - "Your Taxes Really are 'Play Money'"

Alan Adamson - "Arts Subsidies"

Terrorist Apologists of the Far Left

Rioting "not violence" but "freedom of expression". Who knew?

According to a Montreal-based anti-capitalist group, the black bloc anarchists who indulged their revolutionary fantasies in downtown Toronto this past week were not violent.

Ani-Capitalist Convergance, a group whose name speaks for itself, made a variety of absurd statements that the Toronto Star obligingly reported. Those statements ranged from blatant apologism for the terrorist thugs who rampaged in downtown Toronto to making some absurd accusations.

“For us it’s not violence,” mused Mahieu Francoeur, a spokesman for the group. “It’s a means of expression and doesn’t compare to the economic and state violence we’re subjected to.”

"We respect a diversity of tactics. People are angry, particularly in the context of an event like that," Francoeur continued. "For us it's vandalism against certain institutions . . . it's symbolic and doesn't compare with violence in general in society."

In other words: the black bloc terrorists destroying storefronts in downtown Toronto weren't violent because the ACC approves of their actions. Meanwhile, the economy is violent because the ACC disapproves of capitalism.

Consider it something of a Marxist slip.

“I think the message is clear,” explained Danie Royer. “If people take back the streets, if people attack symbols of capitalism, I think this is the message."

Among the more absurd comments made by the group was an accusation that riot police in Toronto indiscriminately arrested all francophones in downtown Toronto.

“Everybody that was in the streets that talked French or even cars that had Quebec plates were arrested," Royer insisted.

The best evidence they have to offer for this is that one of their members, arrested during the riots, was held in a 20-person holding cell with 18 other francophone Quebeckers. They also note that 300 of 450 people they took to Toronto didn't return with them.

Many of them were likely arrested.

Foyer also complained that the police moved quickly to deal with the ACC.

"When we arrived by bus the police were waiting for us. They took our flags, our [signs]," she said.

Of course, there's more to the matter than Francoeur or Foryer admit. As it turns out, Anti-Capitalist Convergence, as a broader movement, peddles in various forms of support for protest movements. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

But among those forms of support is agitprop, most simply propaganda designed for agitation.

Which explains why so many members of ACC may have been arrested in Toronto. While the black bloc riots were clearly premeditated and not provoked by the ACC, the ACC was almost certainly attempting to agitate protesters at the G20 Summit into some kind of action -- and it's already been shown that they aren't the slightest bit taken aback by violence.

Thinking more deeply about the group and its goals, it becomes clear that the group's attempts to stir up ethnic/lingual tensions in a country rendered sensitive to such matters -- due to the fact that it has been tragically prone to such tensions -- is itself an article of agitprop.

As far as being one-trick ponies goes, groups such as Anti-Capitalist Convergence not only take the cake, but they baked it too.

Segal Out of Place as Head of Anti-Terror Committee

Hugh Segal elected to chair Senate committee on anti-terror laws

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has been elected to chair a special Senate committee on anti-terror laws. The committee will examine two anti-terror bills, including Bill C-17, which will restore anti-terror laws that sunsetted in 2007.

"It was an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to investigative hearings," Segal explained. "Whether somebody could be held because there was a suspicion that they had either been involved in a terrorist act, or had information about a coming terrorist act, and what were their rights in that process, and what were the rights of the Crown."

In order to make decisions regarding the legislation, the committee will investigate the overall terrorism situation in Canada.

"We're going to be working on an update of what is the state of the terrorist threat in Canada (and) how has that threat changed in the last five years," Segal explained.

Segal has proven to be an adept thinker on numerous policy issues. But terrorism-related issues isn't one of his strengths.

Pierre Trudeau's decision to invoke the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 has been a controversial one in Canadian history. Segal, who was a student at the University of Ottawa at the time, has been an outspoken critic of that decision.

The limitation of civil rights is not a matter to be taken lightly at any time. But the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Pierre Laporte, a Quebec cabinet Minister, limited Trudeau's options in responding to the crisis.

Invoking the War Measures Act was a necessary part of the response to the threat posed by the FLQ. It introduced a crucial element of control into the situation, allowing the government to account for the activities of FLQ sympathizers who may have aided the terrorists.

The crus of the matter was, of course, that the Trudeau government had, through its own negligence, allowed the situation to grow out of control.

Unless Segal's views on the October Crisis have changed drastically in short order, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that Segal isn't up to the task of making decisions in regards to terrorism -- particularly when Segal himself seems to understand that the nature of current terrorist threats represents a more fractious, less centralized structure.

"We now face a threat that is more diffuse, in other words it's not somebody in a cave sending instructions to cells around the world," Segal said. "But rather self-identifying cells of individuals deciding they are frustrated with this, that or other, and they want to use terrorism as a means of making their point."

In his favaour, Segal seems to understand that the government cannot afford to repeat the preemptive failures of the Trudeau government.

"When you have individuals who [are] more than prepared to die, then that of course provides a preventative challenge," Segal declared. "So it changes the dynamic of the challenge and makes it more complex, all the more reason to make sure we're doing it in the best possible way."

But while Hugh Segal may be more than willing to do what is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, he needs to show concerned parties that he's willing to do what is necessary if those preventative measures fail.

Otherwise, his chairing the Senate committee on anti-terrorism is a mistake.

Reconquete La Conquete

Part two of The Champions deals with the famed 1970 October Crisis, and how the actions of the FLQ challenged both Pierre Trudeau and Rene Levesque on deep politically existential levels.

For Levesque, he had to confront the reality that individuals willing to engage in terrorism existed within the Quebec separatist movement he had built. (They may exist within that movement still.)

For Trudeau, his invokation of the war measures act challenged the values his party allegedly stood for. In the eyes of some, invoking the war measures act was the right move. After all, Canada was facing a terrorist threat, and the government had to do what was necessary to deal with it. In the eyes of others, invoking the war measures act was an unacceptable contravention of civil liberties.

Domestic terrorism poses a deep challenge to any country that must deal with it. The prospect of citizens who don't respect the rule of law in their political maneuvers is deeply troubling not only to those associating with those individuals -- even if unwillingly, as Levesque was -- and to those who have to deal with them.

One can sense how deeply shaken Levesque was when dealing with the prospect of such terrorists within his movement. One can even sense a slight discomfort for Pierre Trudeau as he dismisses the "bleeding hearts" who worry about the prospects of soldiers with guns in Quebec's cities (a deployment approved not by Stephen Harper, but by Pierre Trudeau).

No citizen wants to believe that they should fear their fellow citizens. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why so many countries avoid dealing with domestic terrorist groups. While it struggles to gain any semblence of credibility, groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Guard continue t exist in Canada.

While the FLQ doesn't share a common place in the Canadian imagination as the KKK and the Aryan Guard, these organizations have far more in common than they are usually given credit for.

While Canadian law can often be quite eager to designate foreign groups as a terrorist group, that designation is used all too sparingly against domestic groups.

This could be said to at least partially explain how the FLQ was able to survive even after it had committed its earlier criminal acts.

It wasn't until Pierre LaPorte was murdered, and James Cross was kidnapped, that the Canadian government began to really take the FLQ's bid to "reconquer the conquest" as seriously as the threat it posed merited.

Stay Classy Gilles, Pauline

PQ, BQ leaders to attend reading of FLQ Manifesto

Admittedly, the Canadian attitude toward history can often seem a little peculiar.

While in most countries, being seen at an event at which terrorist literature will be recited would be political suicide, in Canada is can be A-OK. So long as you're a Quebec separatist.

The Government of Quebec recently withdrew its support for "Le Moulin a Paroles", an outdoor poetry and spoken-word reading after a recital of the Front du Liberation du Quebec Manifesto was added to the program.

“Our government doesn’t want to have anything to do with this event. At first, it was supposed to be about poetry, but now with the FLQ manifesto, we are closer to bombs and assassinations,” said Employmen Minister Sam Hamad.

“This brings us back to the October Crisis and we don’t think it’s a good idea,” Hamad added.

This isn't to say that the October Crisis should never be commemorated, but the event in question is intended to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

“Now it’s become a political issue more than an historical event,” Hamad concluded.

The addition of the Manifesto reading is simply an attempt by Pequistes to hijack the event in favour of their political cause -- no wonder Gilles Duceppe and Pauline Marois are so eager to attend!

Sadly, their attendance at this event will likely do very to harm their political fortunes, even if it only goes further to show the rest of Canada who, precisely, these Quebec separatists truly are -- self-interested demagogues, adhering to a racial ideology and sympathizing with yesteryear's terrorists.

MSNBC Wants You... To Be Scared Shitless

John Acton once famously remarked that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As one apprises the state of the American left-leaning media, the former part of this maxim becomes almost immediately apparent.

Once upon a time, the American left-wing derided the excesses of FOX News and other right-leaning media outlets. They were (often quite rightly) accused of being toadies for the governing Republican party, fear mongering, and otherwise helping to steamroll political dissent.

A recent segment from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show serves as a perfect example, wherein Maddow seeks to stir up fear of anti-health care reform protesters by comparing them to anti-abortion terrorists.

In an interview with Dr George Hearn -- who himself has had many threats made against his life -- Maddow attempts to conflate as closely as possible those who are protesting health care reform with violent anti-abortion zealots.

Appearing on the show, Hearn offers a very illustrative account of how he sees the abortion debate and how it turned to violent. It's clearly his view -- for example, he insists the anti-abortion movement of becoming more and more "harsh and aggressive in their rhetoric" (they have), but declines to note that the pro-abortion movement has become more and more harsh and aggressive in its rhetoric, to the extent that applaud and celebrate acts of violence against anti-abortion activists.

Hearn and Maddow insist that violence perpetrated against anti-abortion extremists sets a trend toward political violence that will spill over into the health care debate. Yet neither of them provide any substantive examples of the health care debate moving in this direction.

Not that there hasn't been any cause for concern. The presence of two gun-toting individuals at Barack Obama's health care town hall meeting in New Hampshire last week is clearly an eye-opener.

But on his own show, Hardball, Chris Matthews clearly put on his Bill O'Reilly hat before hosting William Kostric, interrupting him numerous times, and bombarding him with numerous irrelevant questions.

"Who did you vote for last November?"

"What do you think of President Obama?"

"Do you have any problems with his legitimacy as President?"

"You're not part of the birther movement or anything like that?"

"Where are you on the issue of whether he's a legitimate President of the United States?"

"You're not making any claim that he's not a citizen?"

Kostric clearly is not the sharpest individual, as only an idiot would bring a gun to meeting where any international leader. But for Matthews to work as hard as he did attempting to portray Kostric as an erstwhile assassin just shows how far left-leaning media outlets like MSNBC are willing to in order to use fear tactics to marginalize the opponents of health care reform.

Certainly, there has been a lot of inflammatory nonsense peddled under the guise of legitimate dissent on this issue. Sarah Palin's recent self-humiliation is a perfect example of this.

But setting up a universal health care system is a costly proposition, regardless of what model the United States elects to follow. Individuals like Kostric have every reason to be concerned. The efforts of individuals like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow splendidly illustrate precisely how far they're willing to go in order to terrify people from their bully pulpit.

They Truly Are Everything They Claim to Abhor

Anyone who follows the abortion debate in any way, shape or form -- or even watches the news in general -- remembers the pro-abortion lobby's reaction to the murder of Dr George Tiller.

Naturally, they expressed outrage. Normally, there would be nothing at all wrong with this. After all, Dr Tiller's murder was an act of domestic terrorism and any proper-thinking individual should be outraged at it.

The problem with the outrage of the pro-abortion lobby over the matter was that it was entirely feigned. They blamed the pro-abortion lobby as a whole for inciting the murder of Dr Tiller.

Violence, one would think, is where the pro-abortion lobby would draw the line in terms of acceptable action.

Think again.

When 60-year-old James Canfield was nearly run over by an SUV while protesting at an abortion clinic, JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie immediately moved to try to minimize the incident as much as she could.

As with the previous case of Ed Snell, JJ's attempts to sweep this example of violence against pro-abortion protesters under the carpet was nothing if not utterly revelatory regarding her true attitude regarding violence centred around the issue of abortion:

"It's OK when we do it."

JJ's near-tragic hypocrisy is now on display once again as she mocks another blogger, Jill Stanek, for writing about another case of violence against an anti-abortion protester, yet another one involving a deadly weapon.

The case involves the matter of a man pointing a gun at a pro-abortion protester outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Apparently, what she had done to justify the assault is hand the man a pamphlet.

And JJ apparently seems to feel it very much is justified. One only has to look at her comments on the matter:

"Stand back! Looks like some of us are losing our patience."

As if this weren't bad enough, one only has to read on:

"When it comes to firearms, I follow one simple rule of gun safety: never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot."

Only in the mind of someone whose views on the topic of abortion are hopelessly extreme could an attitude like this be tolerated.

But one would think that the simple, basic hypocrisy of all of this would at least rend on JJ's conscience, just a little. Anyone who thinks this would be sorely overestimating this individual's self-awareness:

"Anti-choicers seem to think that because they lamely 'denounced' the May 31st murder of yet another doctor by one of their own, everyone will forgive and forget and they can just pick up where they left off on May 30th and carry on with the hateful rhetoric and clinic protests as usual. They don’t seem to realize that for some, Dr Tiller’s murder might have been a game-changer. It might have awakened people to the fact that the violence inherent in the fringe of the anti-choice movement isn’t a series of random one-offs, but part of a larger pattern, and that 'mainstream' anti-choicers share a lot more with their fringe than they’d willingly admit. People are frightened and they’re responding accordingly — that’s why it’s called 'terrorism'."

The twisted logic in a statement like this is nothing if not a little frightening.

JJ's preferred response to the terrorist violence being perpetrated by extremists within the anti-abortion movement is to attempt to embrace violence within the mainstream of those who support abortion.

At least the anti-abortion movement, as a whole, has the class and dignity to push violent anti-abortion activists as far away from their movement as they can and denounce them.

Yet individuals like JJ refuse to perform the same act. There are two reasons for this:

First, individuals like JJ -- and her would-be "sergeant at arms", Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons -- are individuals whose views on abortion are so incredibly extreme that no rational individual would ever find much in common with them on that topic.

Secondly, individuals like JJ -- and Fern Hill, and the rest of JJ's cohorts -- are shameless hypocrites. They are more than willing to embrace violence if it suits their purposes of shutting down debate on the topic of abortion.

This, of course, makes them every bit as bad as the man who murdered Dr George Tiller. They know this. They understand this. They simply refuse to admit it publicly, pretending as if that somehow makes a difference.

It doesn't.

The Not-So-Fine Art of Keeping Your Fucking Story Straight, For Fuck's Sake

Pro-abortion zealots can't seem to stick to one reason to try to label all anti-abortion activists as terrorists

The sad, sad story to emerge out of the assassination of Dr George Tiller only continues to unfold. Perhaps this man's martyrdom will continue into perpetuity.

In the immediate aftermath of Dr Tiller's assassination, various pro-abortion bloggers tried to pin it as squarely on the anti-abortion movement as a whole as they possibly could.

Their argument at the time was that the "abortion is murder" rhetoric employed by so many members of the anti-abortion lobby was responsible for encouraging -- perhaps even mandating -- Dr Tiller's murder.

Consider this particular passage from Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons:

"I cannot express in words the rage I am feeling right now.

Not just at the fact that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider specializing in medically-necessary late-term abortions, was murdered today. No, I am enraged by those who whipped the hatred against this man, who did everything to encourage his murder, are suddenly pretending they had nothing to do with it.

Damn them all. All of them.

Randall Terry. SUZANNE. The Catholic Church. The Army of God.

All of them. They are the same. They purposely espouse violent rhetoric, celebrate past perpetrators of violence and murderers as 'martyrs' and try to create false moral equivalence with a medial procedure and a planned premeditated murder of a 67-year-old professional, father and grandfather."

Interestingly enough at least one of the individuals Mike points his spiteful finger at denounced Dr Tiller's murder in no uncertain terms.

But for Mike, it didn't matter. Suzanne Fortin had, in the past, argued in the "abortion is murder" vein, and so was responsible for Dr Tiller's murder.

JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie, at the time, echoed those sentiments.

Yet when one considers a post from Unrepentant Old Hippie today, one has to recognize the extent to which their story has changed. Now, the anti-abortion lobby isn't responsible for Dr Tiller's murder as a result of "abortion is murder" rhetoric. Now, they're being held responsible because not enough anti-abortion activists have denounced the act:

"While it would be oversimplification to suggest they’re all terrorists, there’s no doubt that the anti-abortion movement harbours a disproportionately high number of them, and too few who unequivocally condemn the violence and actively work to marginalize such people. Some call that 'giving safe haven'. I call it 'being onside'."

Naturally, that brings one to the recent case of the vehicular assault on James Canfield.

As with prior incidents of violence perpetrated against anti-abortion activists, JJ herself has failed to condemn this act.

In fact, it's much, much worse than that. Compare what actually happened:

"According to witness statements gathered by police, Haver allegedly tried to strike 60-year-old protestor James Canfield with a 1991 GMC sports utility vehicle at the Planned Parenthood office on Vallombrosa Avenue. "

With JJ's description of it:

"Following in the footsteps of the infamous Ed Snell, a couple of days ago in Chico California yet another old fetus fetishizing fart, writhing in the throes of an indignance high in front of the local Planned Parenthood he was harassing, was uninjured but shaken after an SUV passed in his general vicinity."

Apparently, not only will JJ not condemn the violence against Canfield, but she won't even discuss the incident honestly for what it was.

So herein lies the problem with JJ's particular line of argument: if the anti-abortion movement is responsible for the murder of Dr Tiller because too few of its members denounced the violence, how can it be that JJ and her cohorts would expect to argue that they aren't at least partially responsible for the violence against James Canfield?

They've not only failed, but refused to denounce that kind of violence in the past. They attempt to minimize it terms that are nothing less than absolutely shameful -- imagine their outrage if some anti-abortion dingus had suggested that the bullet that killed Dr Tiller had just "passed too close to his general vicinity".

But therein lies the rub. The outrage over abortion-centred violence seems extremely selective to this particular crowd. If the violence is being perpetrated against them, they milk it for maximum rhetorical advantage.

If the violence is being perpetrated against their opponents, they cheer it.

The saddest part of all is that they can't even keep their fucking story straight while they're doing it.

And They Wonder Why No One Takes Them Seriously

PETA promoting "revolutionary veganism" with Guevara's granddaughter

When an organization is as cozy with domestic terrorists as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been, one shouldn't be shocked when they cozy up to the grand daughter of one of history's most infamous terrorists.

In one of the most recent examples of how radical an organization it really is, PETA has tapped Lydia Guevara, the granddaughter of Che Guevara -- of T-shirt fame -- to pose semi-nude in an ad campaign promoting a "vegetarian revolution".

One may be tempted to suspect that PETA is just another bunch of hucksters seeking to profit Guevara's revolutionary legacy without really knowing anything about it.

But considering the organization's past, the likelihood is that they know exactly what Che Guevara was about, and simply doesn't care.

The innumerous atrocities perpetrated by Guevara are well known by those who haven't been seduced by a romanticized version of the man. When Guevara died in 1967 he died with the blood of hundreds of people on his hands. He summarily executed 156 Cuban officials upon the overthow of the Batista regime. He was known for jailing and murdering homosexuals. He ordered rock music banned in Cuba, and opposed free elections under any circumstances whatsoever.

(He, like Fidel Castro, knew he and his ideological cohorts would lose.)

A historical record like that would dissuade almost any self-respecting organization from appealing to his image.

PETA, however, has never been an organization that respects itself. Nor have they ever shied way from supporting terrorists themselves.

Anyone who has ever seen the PETA episode Bullshit! knows all about the story of Rodney Coronado, an individual who has been involved in many incidents of violent protest. PETA donated nearly $50,000 to Coronado's defense fund, an amount that amounts to nothing less than complete condonation of his activities.

PETA either tacitly approves of the tactics that Guevara used to help establish communism in Cuba, or is simply naive enough to buy into his image.

One expects that kind of naivete from Lydia Guevara. She certainly didn't fail to deliver.

“I talked about it with my family before hand," Guevara says. "The name of my grandfather means I can fight for worthwhile causes which I believe in.”

Which apparently includes appearing in a PETA ad wearing nothing but camouflage fatigues, a red beret and a bandolier of carrots. She's attractive enough to pull off the look, but one would wonder how Guevara would feel about her raised fist in the ad if she stopped to think about the intimidation tactics Guevara used against those amongst his own relatives who didn't share his revolutionary fervour.

Oops.

Not that one would expect PETA to have retained any capacity for shame at this point, but the tragedy of 24 years of Lydia Guevara's brainwashing is absolutely palpable.

Musharraf, Kasparov and the Tree of Terrorism

Russian Grandmaster's question about terrorism makes Pakistani General uncomfortable

If Russian President Vladimir Putin is paying any attention to the international exploits of his chief political rival, he may well feel just as uncomfortable as former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did recently.

Speaking alongside General Musharraf at a conference in New Delhi, Kasparov asked him a question that made him noticably skittish.

In the question, Kasparov likened terrorism to a problematic tree. He noted that when dealing with such a tree -- perhaps one whose roots threaten to grow through the foundation of a house -- the best strategy wasn't to periodically trim the leaves, but rather to deprive it of its water source.

Reportedly, Musharraf attempted to avoid answering the question, insisting that the Pakistani government doesn't provide support to terrorists, and insisting that it was the Afghan drug trade that was supplying terrorists.

Kasparov's terror tree has recieved support from Pakistan's military, mainly from the Inter-Intelligence Service (ISI). While Pakistan's official policy -- both under Musharraf's regime and under the current Pakistani People's Party government -- is to oppose terrorists, it hasn't always done a convincing job of doing this in practice.

Of course, it's another thing if the tree proves to be somewhat useful. Islamic militancy and terrorism has certainly been a fruit-bearing tree for Musharraf -- it's helped him justify coup d'etats in Pakistan.

The ISI has been known to provide material support to terrorists. Whether its out of sympathy for their aims or because the Pakistani military has found them useful -- justifying ever-higher annual expenditures on miliary spending -- is a bit more a complex matter.

Even if Musharraf's administration never directly provided material support to terrorist organizations his half-hearted attempts to control them have certainly proven to be a form of support all their own.

It's important to note that the administration of current Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani hasn't done any better. Their practical hand over of the Swat region to the Taliban will provide shelter to Taliban and other Islamic Militants that will strengthen their operations throughout both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

General Pervez Musharraf could have cut off the water supply to the tree of terrorism long ago -- if only by controlling the Pakistani border.

Sadly, Gary Kasparov seems to be one of the few leaders willing to stand up and tell him as much. Vladimir Putin must be a little worried to see that his unelected rival is a stronger international leader than he is.

Cry Fucking Harder, Bill

Former Weather Underground terrorist denied entry to Canada

In a blog post on National Post Full Comment, Stephen Taylor brings us the tale of Bill Ayers -- the former Weather Underground terrorist now famed for his associations with now-US President Barack Obama -- being denied entry into Canada.

“It seems very arbitrary,” Ayers complained. “The border agent said I had a conviction for a felony from 1969. I have several arrests for misdemeanours, but not for felonies.”

Not that he hasn't committed felonies. By his own admission, he's done that.

"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers told the New York Times (on 9/11, no less!). "I feel we didn't do enough."

It may come as a shock to Bill Ayers that known terrorists are not allowed it Canada. It shouldn't.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Kevin's Woodshed - "Bordering on the Insane"

The Reaction - "Canada Denies Entry to Ayers"

Welcome to the War on Terror

Mumbai attacks open new theatre in War on Terror

With the Mumbai terror attacks having reached their tragic conclusion, it finally seems safe to comment.

The Mumbai attacks are sobering in their implications. With up to 155 dead -- including at least two Canadians -- the War on Terror has clearly opened a new front in one of the world's most populated countries.

The attacks were carried out with frightening precision. In less than an hour, Mariman House, Leopold's Cafe, the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberon Trident Hotel, the Cama Hospital, and the Chatrapati Shivaji railway station were under attack. It would take three days to bring the attack to a halt.

If anything, the Mumbai attacks demonstrates the importance of dealing with domestic terrorism. The Deccan Mujahadeen and the Students Islamic Movement of India who have been accused of jointly planning and executing the attack were previously identified as responsible for bombings in Uttar Pradesh.

Even if the Deccan Mujahadeen were operating out of Pakistan, the Mumbai attacks were made possible by India's failure to deal with the organization within its own borders.

India and Pakistan clearly have common interests in tackling the Deccan Mujahadeen. Yet these attacks are far too likely to increase the tensions between the two countries -- tensions that are already perennially preoccupied with the contentious Kashmir region.

But the terrifying events in Mumbai has also presented Canada with an opportunity. While difficult, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon now has the opportunity to crack open the Chretien-era handbook on Mission Diplomacy and help negotiate a tripartite security agreement between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The goals of this agreement should be to harmonize their efforts and strategies in approaching the security threat posed by the tumultuous regions of western Pakistan.

The second front of the Canadian response to the Mumbai attacks should be to push for the British Commonwealth to provide military aid to the three countries in pacifying the region.

As a prominent member of the Commonwealth, Canada has an opportunity to lead the Commonwealth in an area where it has nothing short of a responsibility to respond.

One can only hope that Lawrence Cannon is keeping an eye on this pivotal opportunity while naturally keeping the other eye on the survival of his government. Furthermore, one can only hope that Cannon is prepared to mix an aggressive, muscular foreign policy stance with the mission diplomacy approach favoured by the Chretien-era Liberals.

This Day in Canadian History

November 24, 1968 - FLQ terrorists bomb Montreal Eaton's store

In 1968, Pierre Trudeau assumed the office of Prime Minister of Canada when he succeeded Lester Pearson as the leader of the Liberal party.

In an election held on June 25 of that year Trudeaumania swept Trudeau and his Liberals into power with a majority government.

But not everyone was so pleased. In Trudeau's home province of Quebec dark clouds were beginning to coalesce over Canadian unity.

The day before the election Trudeau attended the St Jean Baptiste Day parade in Montreal. Enraged at his presence, Quebec separatists began to riot and barraged his grandstand with bottles and rocks. While the other officials seated on the grandstand took cover Trudeau stood his ground. A Canadian legend took shape that day -- that of Pierre Trudeau the fearless separatist fighter, facing down the separatists with little regard for his own safety.

It's become a potent element of the political mythology many Canadians -- especially Liberal partisans and those like-minded -- have built around Trudeau.

However, the bottles and rocks hurled at Trudeau that day paled in comparison to the coming storm.

On November 24, 1968, a bomb exploded in an Eaton's store in downtown Montreal. The Front de Liberation du Quebec, also known as the FLQ, quickly took responsibility for the act. Domestic terrorism had officially arrived in Canada.

The FLQ had been active prior to 1968. On April 20, 1963, Wilfred Vincent O'Neil became the FLQ's first victim. O'Neil, a security guard at a Canadian Army recruiting centre was killed by an FLQ bomb.

A year later, in 1964, Leslie McWilliams was killed in the course of an FLQ robbery of a gun store he managed.

In 1965, FLQ explosives intervened in a labour dispute between La Grande shoes and a Quebecois labour union when Therese Moran, a secretary, was killed.

Throughout 1968 and 1969, bombings became more and more frequent leading up to the 1970 October crisis when FLQ terrorists kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.

Unfortunately, it took an international incident for the FLQ to be decisively dealt with. The pre-1970 victims of the FLQ included not only those killed, but numerous wounded. The most blatant act of unremitting terrorism, conducted according to a manifesto entitled "Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde", occurred in 1969 when the FLQ bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange. 27 people were wounded in that attack.

In today's age of preoccupation with international terrorism -- and a disproportionate focus on Islamic Militants in particular -- the events of November 24, 1968 stand as a stark reminder of the threat of domestic terrorism, one that has remained much more omnipresent throughout Canadian history than many Canadians would care to admit.

From violence directed at Canadian abortion clinics to the activities of various racial groups, domestic terrorism has often been largely ignored in Canada.

One can only hope that taking the opportunity to reflect on such episodes will lead to a realization of how deeply such terrorist acts can rend Canada's national fabric, and to a commitment by Canadians of all walks of life to take the issue of domestic terrorism seriously.

The Gods Must Be Angry or Something

Bill Maher, LA Times, Obama campaign targeted by domestic terrorists

When Bill Maher chose to frame his film Religulous as a call to arms against religion, one would be alarmed if he didn't believe the so-called "other side" just might respond to that call.

But as it turns out, Religulous may not be the only thing Maher has done to inspire the violent ire of religious extremism.

Last night Maher performed at a club in Palm Desert, California where a threat-laden letter containing a white powder had been sent.

"Save the babies" was reportedly written on the front of the envelope, and "kill all Obama supporters" scrawled across the back.

Similar letters were recieved by the Los Angeles Times and at a Barack Obama campaign office in Los Angeles.

As the 2008 United States Presidential Election campaign intensifies with less than a month to go until balloting, it's starting to seem more and more that this campaign is taking on more and more distinct overtones of a religious conflict. Perhaps more than any other presidential campaign in recent history.

Consider the case of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a city so religiously polarized by the campaign that local resident Ann Conway -- an opponent of abortion and of the Iraq war -- mused that "If I do end up voting for Obama, then I’ll go to confession after and tell the priest my sin."

Bishop Joseph Martino, the Bishop of Scranton, has declared that Barack Obama's Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will be denied communion within his diocese.

“Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign,” Martino has asserted. “Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.”

Canadians are familiar with a few of these religious overtones within our own politics. In Ultramontaine Quebec (long prior to Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution), it was regarded that "heaven is Bleu and hell is Rogue". The message of this was crystal clear: proper god-fearing Quebeckers would vote for the Conservatives, as voting for the Liberal party was considered blasphemous.

One also recalls that Prime Minister Paul Martin was threatened with the denial of communion over his government's same-sex marriage act.

To pretend that religion and politics can ever be truly and fully separate is utterly naive. Although it offended a great many Canadians, Preston Manning was actually quite wise to note that religious beliefs inevitably will, in one way or another, have an influence on political beliefs.

But there is no doubt that the equation of certain political beliefs with sin has a deeply corrosive influence on both politics and religion. This "crusade" against pro-abortion candidates and commentators is proof of this.

There is no getting around calling the actions of those who sent the letters in question to Maher, the Times and the Obama campaign for what it is: terrorism. The spectre of domestic terrorism, sadly neglected in George W Bush's War on Terror.

Not only is it politically detrimental to equate supporting the "wrong" political candidate as sinful, but religiously detrimental as well: the exploitation of the sacred in the service of the profane. In some extreme cases, as we see with these attacks, they transform the adherents of a faith founded by a man who preached a message of peace from law-abiding citizens into terrorists.

With all good fortune, those who have perpetrated these attacks will pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of American law.

But it's important to note that the answer to the corrosive influence of invasive religious fundamentalism is not what Bill Maher himself would advocate -- a public-scale disavowal of religion.

Rather, the answer is for moderates like Ann Conway -- even if Conway herself, her political thinking tinged with the notion of anti-abortion politics as a sin she's willing to bear even if unwillingly, could barely be described as a moderate -- to wake other believers up to the notion that they can keep their politics and their faith.

The answer is for more churches to take a hard line stance against violent anti-abortion activism, and denounce such terrorism for what it really is.

Meanwhile, one should also not overlook that atheist activists such as Bill Maher certainly haven't helped the issue. By seeking to polarize American society against religion, they've made religion as much a political issue as anyone else, but one certainly shouldn't expect them to admit it.

And as we've seen, some of the more deranged among the faithful don't take kindly to it.

9/11 At Election Time

Normally, the pressure has been to keep partisanship to a bare minimum on this day every year.

But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.

Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.

But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.

As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:



It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.

It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.

The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.

One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.

The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.

The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.



Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.

Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.

Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.

Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.

But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.



The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.

The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.

The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.

Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.

The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.

Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.

Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.

The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.

"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.

"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."



There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.

Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.

The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.

With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.

If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.

To do anything less would trample their memories.

What the FLQ Has Been Reduced To

38 years of pouting turns ugly

Whatever one may think about Pierre Trudeau, one has to hand it to him: when a small band of Quebecois separatists crossed the line, he knew exactly what to do.

When Canada was facing a domestic terror threat, he battened down the hatches and dealt with it. While his evoking the War Measures Act has remained one of the great historical controversies in Canadian history -- some insist it was necessary to deal with the FLQ, others point to the number of innocent FLQ sympathizers summarily rounded up under the Act -- one almost has to feel sorry for what the FLQ has become.

Once, they were big, brave little men -- kidnapping British Trade Commissioner James Cross and kidnapping (and later killing) Quebec Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.

Now, they're reduced to spray-painting "traitor" and "FLQ" on his grave.

Although they did allegedly circulate a letter threatening attacks in Montreal last year, those attacks never took place. It seems that vandalizing graves is as ambitious as the all-new, all-bitter FLQ gets these days.

Seems like this is one bogeyman of Canadian history that may not have gone quietly into the good night. But all the same, they've clearly seen better days.

Toronto Terror: Trial by Media?

Trial for Toronto 18 Begins

The trial for the 18 individuals charged for a summer 2006 bomb plot targeting Parliament Hill and the Toronto Stock Exchange, amongst other targets, formally got underway today.

Of course, some insist that was has unfolded since the 2 June, 2006 arrest has been a "trial by media".

On that note, it becomes very interesting to notice that between Canada's two preeminent media outlets, one seems intent to play the role of the prosecution, by focusing on the case laid against the Toronto 18, while the other seems intent on playing the role of the defence.

This is quite unfortunate. For Canadians to fully understand the trial of the Toronto 18 and the key issues of law, order, and civil liberties underlaying such a case, they need to understand both cases.

So, first, from the prosecution:

Crown lawyers expect to present evidence against the Toronto-area terror suspects that show some of the accused planned to commit attacks more deadly than the London subway bombings, according to documents filed in court containing anticipated evidence.

New details contained in the Crown factum that was filed at the trial of the only remaining youth charged allege prosecutors have audio tapes and video tape evidence of some of the suspects plotting several explosions.

The factum contains transcripts of alleged conversations between suspects, including one where one of the accused speaks about the group's violent ambitions.

"They're probably expecting what happened in London or something," the man is quoted as saying. "... Some bombing in a subway kills 10 people and everybody gets deported.

"We're not doing that. ... So our thing it's, it's much, much greater on a scale ... you do it once and you make sure they can never recover again."

The July 2005 bombings in London, carried out by four suicide bombers, claimed the lives of 52 commuters.

One video allegedly shows the Toronto-area suspects at a wooded area in rural Ontario. A passionate speaker is heard saying the men have to "wage war against Rome" -- the Western powers including Canada, the United States, Britain and France.

"Our mission's greater, whether we get arrested, whether we get killed .... Rome has to be defeated. And we have to be the ones that do it," the speaker allegedly says.

The Crown alleges the accused attended two so-called training camps -- one near the town of Washago and the other at the Rockwood Conservation Area near Guelph. The suspects are accused of taking part in military-style exercises in camouflage gear and firearms training with a 9-mm firearm.

The group is accused of planning to storm the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, taking politicians (including the prime minister) hostage and beheading them.

The Crown's filing also alleges that the men planned to construct a radio frequency remote-controlled detonator.

None of these allegations have been proven or tested in court.

The 18 suspects of the alleged al Qaeda-inspired cell were arrested in July 2006. Fourteen men, four of whom are free on bail, are charged with various terrorism-related offences.

Four teens were initially charged, however, charges against three of the youths have been stayed.

The Crown is asking the judge to impose a publication ban to prevent the media from linking evidence at the trial to any of the other adult suspects by name, saying the evidence is "prejudicial" and could destroy any chances of the other suspects getting a fair trial.

The youth's trial has begun with numerous pretrial motions. Evidence is not expected to be heard until mid-to-late May.

Lawyers have said the trials for the adults could be months or even years away.

According to the factum filed today, prosecutors have audio and video evidence detailing the planning sessions for the attack. They allude directly to the London 7/7 Tube bombings, planning to eclipse them in the public mind.

The prosecution also alleges that the accused trained at two terrorist training camps -- one near Washago, Ontario, and the other near Guelph.

Although CTV does recognize that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, although their story contains little mention of the defence council's claims.

And on that note, now for the defence:

A defence lawyer in the alleged Toronto-area bomb plot case filed a court document Wednesday attacking the Crown's case as fanciful and based largely on the unsubstantiated allegations of an unreliable police informant.

The defence factum, a summary of the case that lawyers will argue during the trial, takes on some of the more dramatic allegations made in Crown documents submitted on Tuesday.

The factum was filed on behalf of one of the adult accused whose case has yet to go to trial.

The trial began this week of another defendant, who was 18 at the time of his arrest and cannot be named under the terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The factum says the defence lawyer will show that a so-called "jihadist" training camp run by some of the accused was nothing more than a screening exercise for possible recruits to Islamic militancy, and few of the participants in training at the camp — near the southern Ontario town of Orillia — knew what they were involved in.

Two of the other defendants who have yet to go on trial ran the camp, the factum says, and concealed its purpose from other participants. Trainees took part in winter camping activities but were so ill-equipped for the cold weather that they spent much of their time in a nearby Tim Hortons coffee shop.

Informant brought bullets: lawyer

The document acknowledges that some firearms training took place, but it alleges that the only person to bring live ammunition to the camp was a police informant. That same informant was the person who actually conducted the gun exercises, the factum says.

In addition, the document alleges that the only source of information about what was happening at the Orillia camp was the police informant. There was no "real time" police surveillance, it says.

Responding to transcripts of audio tapes of a police wiretap that the Crown claims were "damning and disturbing" proof of a militant Islamist bomb plot, the factum filed Wednesday said the defendant was not present at the time that other accused were talking about attacking Parliament and the headquarters of CSIS and the CBC.

The factum concludes with an argument against the Crown's request for a publication ban on the names of the defendants, or any evidence that might help identify them.

The document says police and government officials have already taken part in "orgiastic and self congratulatory press gathering[s] … during which evermore private details and 'investigative gossip' were revealed to inflame and misinform the public."

No witnesses until May

"Restricting the publication of evidence at a trial is the sharp edge of a slippery slope," the factum states, "which … results in 'Star Chamber' or military commission [-style] trials where the public's right to know is supplanted by the government desire to withhold."

The document says the defendant would suffer unduly from a publication ban because he wouldn't be disassociated from some of the worst allegations being made in the case.

In all, 18 suspects were originally charged with offences related to supporting terrorism, but three have had charges against them stayed.

None of the evidence detailed in the Crown review has been tested in court.

Although the trial officially began Tuesday, the first witnesses are not expected to be called until May 27.

In short, the factum filed on behalf of this particular defendant concedes that there was, in fact, a terrorist training camp in Ontario. However, it insists that only two of the accused were aware of the true purpose of the camp, and rest were unfortunate dupes.

Instead of participating in training, the defence insists, the defendant was merely being screened for suitability for Islamic militancy.

Moreover, the defence denies that there are any audio or video recordings incriminating the accused, and that the only evidence the crown can offer is the testimony of the undercover officer.

The defence also insists that a publication ban would harm his client by not allowing him to be disassociated from the alleged details of the case. But as the Youth Criminal Justice Act forbids identifying the defendant, it's important to note that his name hasn't been associated with the alleged details of the case in the first place.

With national security -- and the means by which we preserve it -- very much at stake in these proceedings, it's very important for Canadians to understand this case. One-sided representations of the arguments in this case don't serve this purpose, and should be considered alarming to Canadians.

That being said, if the Toronto 18 truly are being tried in the media, it's at least comforting that both sides at least are being represented, even if only separately.

It may be up to the Canadian people to play the role of the judge and jury. The only question is: how many will take the time to learn the whole story?