NationStates Jolt Archive

I just came across an article with an interesting perspective on the view of Liberalism and the approach to fighting terrorism. The article refers to the October Crisis in Quebec in 1970, and then PM Trudeau's response to the kidnapping of foreign nationals and the growing trend in Quebec to 'accept' extremist solutions to political problems.

In a television interview on Oct. 13, 1970, then-PM Pierre Trudeau said, “there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people.”

When Trudeau was challenged by reporters on how far he would go, his defiant reply was, “Just watch me.”

Now imagine if PM Harper had said the same words in response to the recent arrest of 17 alleged terrorists in Toronto.

Trudeau was definitely a Liberal's liberal. At least in Canada. The current liberal trend seems to be to repel any notion of security over freedom. However, Trudeau's heavy-handed response seemed to quell the existence of the FLQ. Instead, it brought the issue into public debate, and a more civilized discourse.

Link = http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/08/14/1756049.html

I refer to this, not to discuss the use of military intervention in foreign nations, (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan) but domestic solutions to homegrown terror problems.

Your thoughts?

What I love today is that we live in a world where we have people against:

warrantless searches
detention without charge
(both of which are available in Britain but not the US)
watching Muslims (oh, how fucking evil)

it's kind of hard to get "intelligence".

I love it when people say "use more intelligence" and then when you actually spy on someone, or detain them for questioning, everyone wants to say, "that's not fair, you have to wait until they actually blow something up".

These people complain bitterly that "the government sucks because they don't use intelligence" and then when the government tries to use intelligence means and methods, they instantly get upset and want it to stop. Some even go so far as to say that it's not right to arrest people until a plane has blown up. If you arrest them, they say, "oh, the government concocted all of this, and these people are not terrorists, and there's no plot".

Which one then? Wait until they blow it up? Or watch them and infiltrate them and spy on them without their knowledge?

Let me know when you make up your mind.

If I was in charge of the government, if I found out a plot was going down, I would consult privately with the country's highest ranking people both conservative and liberal. And if I heard anyone say, "there's no plot", I would record them saying that (with their knowledge) and then let the plot go forward.

Once the planes blew up, I would resign, but I would play that statement at my public resignation. It would be the end of the party whose leader said we should not violate civil liberties or secretly use intelligence methods.

Trudeau's heavy handedness in Quebec was seen as "the Man" keeping "the French" down. He was way over the line and responded with an exagerated show of force for this kind of thing. The police was conducting investigation and they would have probably caught the guys responsible since even people of the FLQ were appaled at what had transpired. The murder of a foreign diplomat was never the goal. It just happened in the heat of the moment.

Sending in the army was seen as a deliberate show of force to quell the burgeonning separatist movement and, in fact, failed miserably at stopping the FLQ and helped the separatist movement because it was used as a recruiting argument about how the rest of Canada could care less about Quebec and will send the army if we so much as raise a stink about the then-inequities between french and english speaking classes.

Trudeau is loved outside Quebec. He is hated inside the province. He is hated for his shady dealing in the night of long knives, for his apparent disdain of the Quebec province and for his actions during the October crisis.

It was a poor response that not only didn't help the current crisis but further deepened the French-english divide by jailing at random "suspicious-looking" people from the army in order to show some modicum of order. They didn't help at all. Yeah they caught some of the people responsible for the kidnapping. Who knows how it would have ended without the army? My gfelling is that it would have ended far quicker.

Trudeau's heavy handedness in Quebec was seen as "the Man" keeping "the French" down. He was way over the line and responded with an exagerated show of force for this kind of thing. The police was conducting investigation and they would have probably caught the guys responsible since even people of the FLQ were appaled at what had transpired. The murder of a foreign diplomat was never the goal. It just happened in the heat of the moment.

Sending in the army was seen as a deliberate show of force to quell the burgeonning separatist movement and, in fact, failed miserably at stopping the FLQ and helped the separatist movement because it was used as a recruiting argument about how the rest of Canada could care less about Quebec and will send the army if we so much as raise a stink about the then-inequities between french and english speaking classes.

Trudeau is loved outside Quebec. He is hated inside the province. He is hated for his shady dealing in the night of long knives, for his apparent disdain of the Quebec province and for his actions during the October crisis.

It was a poor response that not only didn't help the current crisis but further deepened the French-english divide by jailing at random "suspicious-looking" people from the army in order to show some modicum of order. They didn't help at all. Yeah they caught some of the people responsible for the kidnapping. Who knows how it would have ended without the army? My gfelling is that it would have ended far quicker.

I can see a lot of reasons for Quebecers to not like Trudeau. (Although, I don't imagine it's as univeral in Quebec as you claim it to be.)

However, you would have to agree that enacting the War Measures Act did put a stop to further 'terrorist' acts from the FLQ or copy-cat groups, no? Or do you contend that these were isolated incidents, that would have gone away if the PM had not got involved? Are you saying that Trudeau's involvement effectively created the Seperatist movement?

I can see a lot of reasons for Quebecers to not like Trudeau. (Although, I don't imagine it's as univeral in Quebec as you claim it to be.)
It'S not as universal. But when talking about these events, it's better to use a broad brush than to be dragged down with "most of...", "plenty of...", etc.

I do not claim to speak for the entire province for obvious reasons.

However, you would have to agree that enacting the War Measures Act did put a stop to further 'terrorist' acts from the FLQ or copy-cat groups, no?
Maybe. I don't know. It sure hasn't helped them. I guess I can give you that one.

Or do you contend that these were isolated incidents, that would have gone away if the PM had not got involved?
They WERE isolated incident better left to be dealt with by the police and justice system. Of course, the separatists not denouncing them didn't help matters. Trudeau could have done any number of things which didn't look like an invasion of the province.

Are you saying that Trudeau's involvement effectively created the Seperatist movement?
No. That would be silly. I'm saying it helped the separatist cause by giving them ammunition to paint the rest of Canada as "teh evil". Surely you can paint Trudeau as legitimizing the FLQ's concerns about showing a heavy handed approach to separation since the Canadian government is using the army to quash a bit of criminal action. What would happen if we separated? Can the same government be as callous as to bomb Montreal?

(Disclaimer: not that I agree with their actions. They were over the line and needed to be dealt with. Just not with the army.)

(Disclaimer: not that I agree with their actions. They were over the line and needed to be dealt with. Just not with the army.)

I tend to agree that it was an 'over-reaction'. I put the post up primarily to contrast a decided Liberal using a very non-liberal approach to controlling domestic terrorism. I do believe, however, that it put a stop to future acts of violence in the name of separatism. It brought it out to the political scene, where it belongs, and has been far more effective for Quebecers.

I tend to agree that it was an 'over-reaction'. I put the post up primarily to contrast a decided Liberal using a very non-liberal approach to controlling domestic terrorism. I do believe, however, that it put a stop to future acts of violence in the name of separatism. It brought it out to the political scene, where it belongs, and has been far more effective for Quebecers.
Can't disagree with you there. But Trudeau was given flak for his approach back then. Also, it served to galvanize his political ennemies like the separatist movement.

So you can draw the following conclusion about using the army as a way to stop terrorism:

1. It lowers the number of actions. (not that Quebec was a hotbed of terrorist activities, though.)
2. It reinforce the belief of your opponents.
3. It will be denounced by many factions. Some for political purpose, some for bleeding-heart reaction.

Can't disagree with you there. But Trudeau was given flak for his approach back then. Also, it served to galvanize his political ennemies like the separatist movement.

So you can draw the following conclusion about using the army as a way to stop terrorism:

1. It lowers the number of actions. (not that Quebec was a hotbed of terrorist activities, though.)
2. It reinforce the belief of your opponents.
3. It will be denounced by many factions. Some for political purpose, some for bleeding-heart reaction.

4. It will increase your popular support throughout the majority of the country and forever canonize you as a controversial, yet effective leader.

Trudeau's heavy handedness in Quebec was seen as "the Man" keeping "the French" down. He was way over the line and responded with an exagerated show of force for this kind of thing. The police was conducting investigation and they would have probably caught the guys responsible since even people of the FLQ were appaled at what had transpired. The murder of a foreign diplomat was never the goal. It just happened in the heat of the moment.

Sending in the army was seen as a deliberate show of force to quell the burgeonning separatist movement and, in fact, failed miserably at stopping the FLQ and helped the separatist movement because it was used as a recruiting argument about how the rest of Canada could care less about Quebec and will send the army if we so much as raise a stink about the then-inequities between french and english speaking classes.

Trudeau is loved outside Quebec. He is hated inside the province. He is hated for his shady dealing in the night of long knives, for his apparent disdain of the Quebec province and for his actions during the October crisis.

It was a poor response that not only didn't help the current crisis but further deepened the French-english divide by jailing at random "suspicious-looking" people from the army in order to show some modicum of order. They didn't help at all. Yeah they caught some of the people responsible for the kidnapping. Who knows how it would have ended without the army? My gfelling is that it would have ended far quicker.
I was going to respond to the OP pretty much in the same fashion, but you probably put it up better than I would have.

Kudos.

4. It will increase your popular support throughout the majority of the country and forever canonize you as a controversial, yet effective leader.
...IF you succed in stopping terrorist actions.

I was going to respond to the OP pretty much in the same fashion, but you probably put it up better than I would have.

Kudos.
Thanks.

I can see a lot of reasons for Quebecers to not like Trudeau. (Although, I don't imagine it's as univeral in Quebec as you claim it to be.)

I confirm. Most Quebecers have only contempt for Trudeau.


However, you would have to agree that enacting the War Measures Act did put a stop to further 'terrorist' acts from the FLQ or copy-cat groups, no? Or do you contend that these were isolated incidents, that would have gone away if the PM had not got involved? Are you saying that Trudeau's involvement effectively created the Seperatist movement?
The kidnapping and eventual murder or Pierre Laporte was an isolated incident caused by a handful of the most extremist members of the FLQ. The Quebec separatist movement, unlike most other such separatist movements in the world, was always based on democracy and poplular support. The Laporte incident, I believe, is the ONLY documented case where violence was used in an attempt to further separatist goals.

That incident was used to justify the political decision to send in the army. It was a pretext, and it was grossly exagerated. What should normally have been a matter of police investigation was made into a pseudo national security crisis by making the public believe the FLQ was full of hundreds of dangerous psychopaths who would pillage, kidnap and murder any and all respectable citizens. That was utter bullshit.


Are you saying that Trudeau's involvement effectively created the Seperatist movement?
No, he's saying that Trudeau's involvement bolstered the movement. It gave the separatists ammo to fire at the federal government by exposing just how politically motivated they were, and that they were ready to turn our own army against the french minority at the slightest of provocations.

The kidnapping and eventual murder or Pierre Laporte was an isolated incident caused by a handful of the most extremist members of the FLQ. The Quebec separatist movement, unlike most other such separatist movements in the world, was always based on democracy and poplular support. The Laporte incident, I believe, is the ONLY documented case where violence was used in an attempt to further separatist goals.

That incident was used to justify the political decision to send in the army. It was a pretext, and it was grossly exagerated. What should normally have been a matter of police investigation was made into a pseudo national security crisis by making the public believe the FLQ was full of hundreds of dangerous psychopaths who would pillage, kidnap and murder any and all respectable citizens. That was utter bullshit.

While I agree that it was an extreme over-reaction to the events (the sledgehammer to crush the peanut was the analogy of the time?), I highly doubt it was Trudeau chomping at the bit to send troops into Quebec. Rather, I liken it to him trying to eliminate a wider political reaction from English Canada by not doing something about it. Trudeau's words;

“to make clear to kidnappers that in this country laws are made and changed by the elected representatives of all Canadians, not by a handful of self-styled dictators.Those who gain power through terror rule by terror.”

I admit, there is a certain irony in that statement. But the idea that the government would immediately crush any sort of violent action to support a political cause was well received through the majority of English Canada.

No, he's saying that Trudeau's involvement bolstered the movement. It gave the separatists ammo to fire at the federal government by exposing just how politically motivated they were, and that they were ready to turn our own army against the french minority at the slightest of provocations.

Yeah, I gathered that from his response. I was trying to see if he was claiming that we wouldn't be dealing with Separatists if Trudeau hadn't enacted the War Measures Act.

...IF you succed in stopping terrorist actions.

Admittedly, and as Skaladora pointed out, Quebec wasn't a hotbed of terrorist activity. But if Trudeau hadn't acted the way he did, would it have become so?

(EDIT: East Canuck posted 'hotbed of terrorist activity, not Skaladora, my bad.)

Trudeau strongly believed in national unity, federalism, and centralization of powers. When you think about Quebec - it's the opposite. Of course Trudeau isn't going to be popular when you compare policies.

Admittedly, and as Skaladora pointed out, Quebec wasn't a hotbed of terrorist activity. But if Trudeau hadn't acted the way he did, would it have become so?
who knows. Here's my synopsis:

- More radical actions are taken by FLQ-like groups.
- The separatist movement separates itself from the terrorists activities.
- Culprit found and tried.
- A lot of media coverage and a lot of talk about separation.
- Heavy sentence to those found guilty.
- Radical actions cease after 12 years tops. Never being a big thing like, say, IRA.

We, quebecers, aren't prone to violence. I don't think that a radical group like the FLQ could have been tolerated by the population like, say the IRA was.

Trudeau strongly believed in national unity, federalism, and centralization of powers. When you think about Quebec - it's the opposite. Of course Trudeau isn't going to be popular when you compare policies.
Not to mention the whole double-crossing thing he did when we brought the constitution home in '81.

Not to mention the whole double-crossing thing he did when we brought the constitution home in '81.
'82 wasn't it?

Admittedly, and as Skaladora pointed out, Quebec wasn't a hotbed of terrorist activity. But if Trudeau hadn't acted the way he did, would it have become so?
It's very dubious. Most of the Quebec citizens are pretty much pacifists, and have always been so. Just look at the polls regarding support for war, for example. Or the low turnout for the draft during WWII. We usually support other means than violence to take care of our problems.

'82 wasn't it?

Yeah, 82. Hardly a goal for national unity when the province you're trying to 'appease' doesn't agree with your new constitution.

'82 wasn't it?
Right... my memory is a bit fuzzy and Wikipedia mentionned a conference in
'81.

Let's go with '82.

Yeah, 82. Hardly a goal for national unity when the province you're trying to 'appease' doesn't agree with your new constitution.
Oh, and for everyone's information, Quebec has yet to sign that new constitution.

Technically, we're not even part of Canada because of that :headbang:

It's very dubious. Most of the Quebec citizens are pretty much pacifists, and have always been so. Just look at the polls regarding support for war, for example. Or the low turnout for the draft during WWII. We usually support other means than violence to take care of our problems.

You know, the FLQ was up to a lot more prior to the kidnapping crisis.

The Quiet Revolution turned bloody in 1963. On April 20 and 21, Molotov cocktails and dynamite time bombs planted by l'Armée de libération du Québec rocked Anglo-Saxon Montreal. The group's first victim was Wilfred O'Neil, a 65-year-old war veteran one month away from his pension. Another, explosives expert Walter Leja, was maimed for life while digging out a bomb in a Westmount mailbox on May 13, 1963 or "black Friday." On Feb. 13, 1969, more bombs exploded, ripping through the Montreal Stock Exchange and injuring 27.

Source = http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-101-596/conflict_war/october_crisis/clip2

Oh, and for everyone's information, Quebec has yet to sign that new constitution.

Technically, we're not even part of Canada because of that :headbang:
Yes we are. Quebec not signing the constitution is a symbolic gesture now.

Oh, and for everyone's information, Quebec has yet to sign that new constitution.

Technically, we're not even part of Canada because of that :headbang:

Well, no. Quebec became a part of Canada went it signed into Confederation in 1867. It just didn't ratify the 82 constitution, which they were more than happy to utilize when it came to the Not withstanding clause.

Well, no. Quebec became a part of Canada went it signed into Confederation in 1867. It just didn't ratify the 82 constitution, which they were more than happy to utilize when it came to the Not withstanding clause.
They are using the constitution that is governing them: 1867. The one who has no beef about the notwithstanding clause. ;)

Seriously, every provincial government can use the clause. It just have to be voted upon again every five years or so. Quebec is using it to defend their protectionism of the french language. (which would be illegal under the charter)

You know, the FLQ was up to a lot more prior to the kidnapping crisis.



Source = http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-101-596/conflict_war/october_crisis/clip2
I would like to point out that 3 big explosions in a 6 year timeline is somewhat tame as far as terrorist organizations go.

Seriously, every provincial government can use the clause. It just have to be voted upon again every five years or so. Quebec is using it to defend their protectionism of the french language. (which would be illegal under the charter)
Well, it's understandable. We're about 7 million francophones drowned on a continent with over... what, 300 million anglophones?

Assimilation doesn't really appeal to us much :-p

I would like to point out that 3 big explosions in a 6 year timeline is somewhat tame as far as terrorist organizations go.
Compared to the movements in Ireland or Spain, that's pretty tame, yes.

Yep, I'm the last Anglo in Quebec. ;)

Yep, I'm the last Anglo in Quebec. ;)
What, you mean you are the collective mind of about a million people and you mostly reside in Montreal?

What, you mean you are the collective mind of about a million people and you mostly reside in Montreal?
Exactly.

Yep, I'm the last Anglo in Quebec. ;)

That should make the referendum for your separation from Quebec relatively simple. You have your cultural identity to protect after all! (j.k. ;) )

I would like to point out that 3 big explosions in a 6 year timeline is somewhat tame as far as terrorist organizations go.

Well gosh, I guess that makes them all cuddly and stuff.

FLQ - We're the tame terrorists! Vive le Quebec Tame!

Well gosh, I guess that makes them all cuddly and stuff.

FLQ - We're the tame terrorists! Vive le Quebec Tame!
:D

Although, golly gee, it would seem you painted quite the picture of foam-at-the-mouth, bomb-strapped-to-their-chest, blind-to-everything-but-the-cause anarchists who can't help but attack the honest, did-no-wrong english speaking Canadian who can't help but wonder why these people are so hell bent on raising an issue that was buried two hundread years ago.

You british folks should have done a better job at assimilating us. It's all your fault. We're merely defending ourselves. ;)

What I love today is that we live in a world where we have people against:

warrantless searches
detention without charge

You make it sound like being against those is a bad thing.

You make it sound like being against those is a bad thing.
Sure worked in the UK.

Otherwise, we would be reading about 3000 people being blown up over the Atlantic today.

:D

Although, golly gee, it would seem you painted quite the picture of foam-at-the-mouth, bomb-strapped-to-their-chest, blind-to-everything-but-the-cause anarchists who can't help but attack the honest, did-no-wrong english speaking Canadian who can't help but wonder why these people are so hell bent on raising an issue that was buried two hundread years ago.

You british folks should have done a better job at assimilating us. It's all your fault. We're merely defending ourselves. ;)

We didn't need to assimilate, since all the frenchies were busy going to Catholic Church and staying out of politics. Then the 60's rolled around, and all of a sudden it was 'Tabernac! This le sucks! Give me Poutine or give me death!'

Seriously. I think that was FLQ's slogan.

There's many information RCMP ordered few bombing and burning. And it's even worse when you look how they searched illegally many organization and arrested many people without warrant.

Pretty ironic from someone who was so proud of the liberty chart.

But he was an iron man, he once attended the St-Jean-Baptiste festivity and the crowd thrown eggs and tomato at him. He went away to wash himself and came back. This man had balls!

There's many information RCMP ordered few bombing and burning. And it's even worse when you look how they searched illegally many organization and arrested many people without warrant.

Pretty ironic from someone who was so proud of the liberty chart.

But he was an iron man, he once attended the St-Jean-Baptiste festivity and the crowd thrown eggs and tomato at him. He went away to wash himself and came back. This man had balls!

Well, I believe the whole point of enacting the War Measures Act was so that the RCMP could do its searches legally. There was nothing illegal in it at all, just highly questionable.

But the man definitely had ego. No doubt about that one.