One Of The 17 Is Accused Of Wanting To Behead Stephen Harper

Blow up Parliament?

Gee, and I thought that Guy Fawkes was dead and buried.

As for "beheading" Harper, it wouldn't have altered anything too drastically.

Why?

Everyone knows that marionettes don't need brains.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Prosecutors are accusing him of wanting to behead the prime minister <<

There is no law against "Wanting to". Mens rea may be proven and again (maybe) but a crime in that respect did not occur. Harper was not beheaded and a vast amount of people have the same thoughts. Perhaps the new terrorist act will now make it a crime to have bad thoughts. Then again it may not be considered a "bad thought" by many. The hype is starting and it appears the police are the ones who started it AND before the trial. That is a law broken in itself. Police are not allowed to voice their opinion publicaly and certainly not before a trial.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

The whole problem with "preventative crime" is the presumption of guilt. In so-called "anti-terrorism" laws, one is required to prove one's self innocent. But, as it is against the law to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre, so it is to express contempt for authority in Canada (or at least it will be very soon.........Sieg Heil!)

---
RickW

"There is no law against "Wanting to". "

If that's the case, many of us here would be guilty. To quote the PM I love to hate: "In him {Pierre E. Trudeau) Canada finally has a PM worthy of assassination." John Diefenbaker.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Yeah Diefenbaker and Trudeai didn't like each other. I like and hate Dief the Chief at the same time....regarding Trudeau;

Dief said: "I'm going to China."

Trudeau said: "I don't care if you're going to China or going to hell".

Dief said: "I know which of the two places you are going".

Trudeau: "Shit".


---
"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan

How come he wants to cut off the noggin of Harper, the PM , BEFORE Mr.Harper was PM? Real or trash talk?

the beheading revelation was brought to us by the lawyer of one of the accused, who most certainly has his own agenda and who wants to manipulate the press and public opinion for his own purposes.

When I first head the lawyer say that, among other things, his client was charged with wanting to behead the PM, I scoffed and said aloud "Wanting to do something is not a crime". I know it, you know it, the lawyer knows it, and the authorities know it.

The lawyer did his job.

He's got you all scared that soon we'll be charged for out thoughts. As some hyperbolic idiot with zero perspective said below, "as it is against the law to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre, so it is to express contempt for authority in Canada (or at least it will be very soon.........Sieg Heil!)"

<blockquote>The lawyer did his job.</blockquote> ... and the government, with plenty of help from the MSM, did its own fear mongering job. Given the lack of credibility and from past experiences with what government fear mongering brings forth, it's safer to side with the accused lawer.

So forget what the lawyer says he has an agenda?
Defence lawyers are not worth listening to because their adgenda is to protect their client, and they have a bias?

CSIS, however have no adgenda or bias?

But the safest position of all is to “side” with neither until the facts come out in a court of law. Agreed?

First off, I never, ever claimed that CSIS is agenda free. So there’s that. Second, I never told anyone to “forget” what the lawyer said, just to consider why it is he is saying what he is saying. So there is that too.

But my point was that neither side is worth taking at face value right now. Taking the “side” of anyone makes you guilty of exactly what many here claim the MSM is doing - espousing opinion in lieu of facts and making bold claims whith nothing to substantiate them. If the MSM is guilty of screaming "Terrorists!" with no facts to support the claim, then some here are just as guilty of screaming "Set up!" with no facts to support the claim.

The point is, none of us know.

"First off, I never, ever claimed that CSIS is agenda free. So there’s that. Second, I never told anyone to “forget” what the lawyer said, just to consider why it is he is saying what he is saying. So there is that too."

I appreciate that you were not making absolute statements which is why I used question marks.

"But my point was that neither side is worth taking at face value right now."

You could well be right there, caution is good advice. I think it also equally valid to listen to all information and sift through it an form an initial opinion, keeping an open mind that much is yet to be revealed. Perfect information revealed perfectly transparently, with zero bias is ideal but less forthcomming.

"Taking the “side” of anyone makes you guilty of exactly what many here claim the MSM is doing - espousing opinion in lieu of facts and making bold claims whith nothing to substantiate them."

All claims are not equal, BUT I don't agree that taking a side makes anyone as quilty of what they have critisized the MSM for because the MSM should uphold higher standards in what they report than individual posters here expressing an opinion or conviction.

" If the MSM is guilty of screaming "Terrorists!" with no facts to support the claim, then some here are just as guilty of screaming "Set up!" with no facts to support the claim."

Again to be fair, maybe the MSM is held to a higher standard than we place on ourselves posting as lone citizens in this venue. I believe the MSM have a higher obligation considering the power they hold and sheer magnitude of their audience, as well as occupying positions of trust in our society.

Fair enough.

Is hearsay evidence now?

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)