I was eleven at the time of the War Measures Act. Then, as now, I believe it was heavy handed and uneccessary, and when I get into these discussions I'm always dissapointingly surprised how easily people between and to each political pole accept Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties and due process.

quote:

---

I haven't heard anything about this for a long time, but my memory was that Laporte was strangled with his crucifix-neckchain thing (sorry, not Catholic, don't know what those are called). Was that untrue?

---

I think that's right, though why exactly I don't recall -- it may be that he tried to escape and the kidnappers panicked.

quote:

---

I think the most charitable interpretation of War Measures in 1970 is that the government panicked.

---

That's a little too charitable for me 'lance. If there's one thing Pierre Trudeau never did in his entire life, it was panic in the face of anything. Behind that hippy-dippy flower child exterior, ran nerves of steel. I subscribe more to lagatta's point of view.

The problem at the time, how ever serious it was locally, did not merit the nationwide imposition of such measures. When parliament supported him in this, it was understood that there was some secret information he had that he was witholding. Civil Libertarian Alan Borovoy came under considerable criticism at the time as one of the few to oppose the measure. He publicly pointed out that based on the facts available, Trudeau didn't have a case.

quote:

---

That's a little too charitable for me 'lance. If there's one thing Pierre Trudeau never did in his entire life, it was panic in the face of anything. Behind that hippy-dippy flower child exterior, ran nerves of steel.

---

Well, that's as may be, though officially War Measures was declared on the request of the Quebec government. Robert Bourassa was barely old enough to shave at that point, and nobody ever accused him of having nerves of steel. Of being bloodless, maybe. So maybe I should have said, Trudeau took advantage of others' panic.

quote:

---

As a strong federalist who valued above all else the principles of rational discourse, and who regarded Quebec nationalism as almost atavistic, he was unbelievably affronted at the actions of the FLQ.

---

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: fatcalf ]

quote:

---

What is truly amazing is to compare Trudeau's steely resolve with the wimpiness of the Quebec judiciary when it came to dealing with the kidnappers, years after the event. They got extremely lenient sentences, and some went on to successful careers, despite the fact the Laporte was killed. A travesty of justice.

---

Bullshit.

Paul Rose was sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping and murder. He was paroled in 1982; but that's nothing to do with the judiciary, let alone the "Quebec judiciary." It was a decision of the National Parole Board.

Francis Simard was sentenced to life imprisonment for his part in Laporte's murder. He too was paroled in 1982.

In separate trials, Jaccques Rose was acquitted of both the kidnapping and the murder of Pierre Laporte after the juries announced they could not agree on a decision. In brief, the Crown had a very weak case against him.

Eventually he was convicted of being an accessory after the fact in Laporte's kidnapping, and was sentenced to eight years.

Bernard Lortie was found guilty of kidnapping Laporte, and sentenced to 20 years. He was paroled after seven years -- again, by the National Parole Board.

Imagine, if you can, the Laporte family's reaction to these cream-puff sentences. This was a premeditated murder of a completely innocent human being.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Langlois

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: fatcalf ]

quote:

---

Yves Langlois served no more than two years.

---

Yves Langlois was charged with the kidnapping of James Cross. He had nothing to do with Laporte, or with murder.

quote:

---

most of the FLQ terrorists served no more than one-third of their sentences.

---

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quebec judiciary.

quote:

---

You're full of shit, Lancy Boy

---

Edited to change boy to Man.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: fatcalf ]

quote:

---

Bite me, Pillow Man

---

quote:

---

If only our leaders today had as much courage as Trudeau did...

---

The second is not, and is usually applied to gays or men suspected of being such.

quote:

---

You see, the receiver of male-male anal sex is usually portrayed as, ah, biting the pillow to prevent from, shall we say, expostulating in his delight.

---

The cynical aspect of it all was that the Liberals used this as an example of Trudeau's "tough-guy" persona.

Again won wonders if the strategic rationale of terror which has always been to provoke draconian response against which the population will then rebel against is in fact valid in the age of mass media and mass control.

Radicals need to rethink this strategy. It doesn't work. It is immoral to be sure but it is counter productive as well. That is, both moral AND rational arguments are against it as a "strategy" for liberation.

Unless of course you can win the war against the state. Something which the world's greatest rogue nation is now practicing against Iraq.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]

quote:

---

A long time ago, in the UK, there was a case of a famous male politician (who's name escapes me) and a chap called Norman Scott. The said politician picked Norman up in a bar or something and invited him home for some rumpy pumpy fun.

Norman apparently had second thoughts about this type of behaviour halfway through the act but felt he had to go through with it anyway. Possibly the thought of how much money he'd make selling the story to the tabloids affected this decision.

Anyway during the court case, when describing the act of anal sex with said politician and his horror at being engaged in this type of behaviour, Norman uttered the immortal words "I just bit the pillow"

Which was, of course, the headline of several tabloid newspapers the next day. It was a quote that could be used on the early evening news without worrying about saying things like 'anal' or 'sex'.

---

I remember being in first university when the War Measures Act was proclaimed. I had no TV read the paper only occasionally and spent a lot of time just talking to people in the coffee shop about politics. I also had a philosophy professor who had us read extracts from Marx and present ideas on whether terrorism in a good cause was justified. For example, would kidnapping and murder have been justified in Nazi Germany?

I took the view then that I shouldn't be punished for the oppression of the state if I had no control over the state. I still think this is true. But even if you argue that some innocent lives must be lost to protect the greater good you must evaluate the likelihood of the success of the instrument of liberation. If there is no strategic signifigance to kidnapping Laporte then why do it?

Similarly if there is no net benefit to Quebec independance to Quebecers separating then why should they bother?

Other provinces, particularlly Ontario or even Toronto need independantist movements if only to win concessions from the Feds that will improve the lives of our fellow citizens in the big cities.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]