I was interviewed on November 6, 2014 by Dr. Kevin Barrett about the suspicious and conveniently timed Ottawa “shooting” of October 22nd. During the interview I drew attention to the implications the perceived false-flag would have for civil liberties in Canada. During the interview I read the following three paragraphs from a Globe and Mail article entitled “How Canada’s Terror Laws Could Change”:
Tabled Monday, the “ Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act” boosts the powers of Canada’s domestic spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), to share information and operate internationally. It also gives new powers for CSIS to keep its sources anonymous. The bill had been meant to be tabled on Wednesday, the same day Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot and killed a soldier at the National War Memorial before storming the Centre Block building on Parliament Hill, where he died. . .
Bill C-44 may not be the end of it. The federal government continues to eye what new powers it will seek for police. Government ministers have mused openly about lowering how much evidence is needed to place a terror suspect under a peace bond, which allows officials to closely monitor the suspect even if they don’t have enough evidence to lay a charge. Other changes could include making it illegal to write online statements that support a terror group and expanding powers for “preventative arrest,” or arrest without a charge. . .
On the same day as Mr. Couture-Rouleau‘s attack, the House passed Bill C-13. The government refers to as an anti-cyberbullying bill but it goes well beyond that. The bill contains broad new police powers, including several new warrants for surveillance, tracking and gathering of bank information that critics have said will, in some cases, require little evidence to get. The issue was raised again this week when the RCMP Commissioner called for certain evidentiary thresholds to be lowered.
The above statements provide a flavour of the changes that are to come in Canada as a result of the implausible official interpretation of the recent events. I noted that the proposed law against “glorifying or condoning terrorism” will enable the state to criminalize anybody who expresses verbal or written support for Palestinian resistance organizations whom under International Law are entitled to resist illegal occupation. The Netanyahu government’s tendentious analysis of Middle East politics is now to provide the framework for Canadian jurisprudence, it seems. Additionally, one can imagine the Zionist thought-police in Canada portraying questioning the official explanations of terrorist incidents as a form of “condoning” or “glorification” of terrorism. Hence it is possible that the Ottawa “shooting” will be remembered as the false-flag that prevented skeptics from discussing false-flags by enabling the enactment of such censorious laws.
I also noted that while Canada’s government is throwing around phrases like “radicalization” and “extremism” that they are the ones who are on the extremity of the United Nations, where they invariably go against the international consensus during votes relating to the terrorism of Israel.
Fortunately, Canadian professors Anthony Hall, Peter Dale Scott and John McMurtry have all published methodical and well-researched pieces drawing attention to the problems with the official explanation of the Ottawa “shooting”. They are all worth reading.