Comments on: Canadian government advice defines abortionists as terrorists

By: boeingboeing2

boeingboeing2 — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:29:00 +0000

Gone from the website today (Saturday). Google cache to the rescue!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYajgHaqt3wJ:fintrac.gc.ca/multimedia/education/c1/pop/2-3-eng.asp%3Fs%3D5+%22counter-terrorism+specialists+define%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk

By: urbanspaceman

urbanspaceman — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:08:00 +0000

Since the Canadian government wrote this, I think its safe to assume it’s a typo. If this passage were written by say, the Texas or New Jersey state legislature, well…

By: Daemonworks

Daemonworks — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:12:00 +0000

I suspect that “abortionist” was probably originally intended to refer to the people who oppose abortion rather than the doctor that perform them, but got inverted by mistake and that nobody caught it.

Mostly because it’s the only group on the list that can’t be stretched to fit any remotely reasonable defitinion of terrorist.

By: Mope

Mope — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:24:00 +0000

via google cache:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYajgHaqt3wJ:fintrac.gc.ca/multimedia/education/c1/pop/2-3-eng.asp%3Fs%3D5+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

By: icecube

icecube — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:53:00 +0000

Didn’t take long for that page to be removed from the government website. Anyone got a back-up of that particular webpage? I’m curious to see what is says in whole.

By: A. David

A. David — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:20:00 +0000

”a helpful banker’s guide to spotting “single-issue terrorists,” which includes…” . Yet another reason to be refused a loan: discernable proofs of consciousness. ”Mr. Shitbag, your loan application was refused because you have morals and principles….that conflict with my godhead. We believe you may decide to do something radical: like resisting us when we decide to screw you over. Thank you and goodbye.”

By: A. David

A. David — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:06:00 +0000

Politics ?

By: qualiagirl

qualiagirl — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:45:00 +0000

Just sent this – it felt good!

To Whom It May Concern,

You have no doubt been inundated with queries about the “Example Categories” page on your site since its posting on boingboing.net. Nevertheless let me add my voice to the list. I am a library technician at Vancouver Public Library with 20 years experience in historical research and database mining. I am hopeful that the ideological slant of the page is simply a question of semantics, which may be corrected with more astute editing, and more intelligent composition. However, in all my research I have yet to discover any event or act of terrorism committed by an “abortionist”. This error is egregious and requires immediate attention. I look forward to its removal from your page, and would appreciate notification when the edit takes place.

By: theminx

theminx — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:15:00 +0000

I’ve emailed them and will let you know what, if anything, they have to say for themselves (aside from the auto-reply I got).

By: erissian

erissian — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:00:00 +0000

Childfree and VHE moments organizing raids on Quiverfull compounds?

By: Mordicai

Mordicai — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:43:00 +0000

I can only assume. I mean. Based on the actual anti-abortion terrorism.

By: Teller

Teller — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:28:00 +0000

Hey, at first I read “arborists.”

By: Lobster

Lobster — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:20:00 +0000

I was thinking, “contortionists.”

By: Lobster

Lobster — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:19:00 +0000

I don’t see any other religion on that list, no, but don’t discount the “extremist” part. Now it’s wrong to single out a single religion’s extremists (aren’t ALL extremists dangerous?) and the word “extremist” doesn’t really MEAN a whole lot, but at least the entry isn’t just “Muslims.”

By: Teller

Teller — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:14:00 +0000

Maybe they meant to write abortophobes.

By: oohShiny

oohShiny — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:45:00 +0000

What do you suppose the actions of a militant abortionist would be? Shooting pregnant women, perhaps? O_o Maybe a fringe group that simply considers killing people *really* late-term abortion? Thoughts?

By: chgoliz

chgoliz — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:31:00 +0000

Or animals. Or the environment.

It’s the perception that liberals are into unimportant, girly things like caring about something other than cold hard cash…whether or not it’s true in each individual case.

I worked with Republicans in the 1970s on the ERA and abortion rights. The lines are drawn very differently now.

By: chgoliz

chgoliz — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:28:00 +0000

The headings are:

- Al-Qaida
- Other Islamist Extremists
- Homegrown (meaning, angry at the country they’re living in)
- Nationalistic
- Single-Issue

Do you see any religion other than Islam on that list?

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:25:00 +0000

To be fair, I expect they include anti-abortionists as terrorists too.
So we’re all terrorists.

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:08:00 +0000

As if ‘liberals’ give a shit about women… lol

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:05:00 +0000

No, ‘someone’ didn’t ‘forget’ anything… such a convenient and overused excuse…

By: rrh

rrh — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:45:00 +0000

I’ve always been partial to “saboteur.”

By: Bill Walsh

Bill Walsh — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:44:00 +0000

Finally, an issue I can go and occupy on the 15th about!

By: Douglas Haddow

Douglas Haddow — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:42:00 +0000

Don’t know if someone has already pointed this out, but in response to “why don’t the list religious fanatics, etc”

“Single-Issue Terrorists” is just one terrorist subgroup listed by the CND gov on this page, here are the others:

http://fintrac.gc.ca/multimedia/education/c1/2-3-eng.asp

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:37:00 +0000

Oh…..Canada.

By: Douglas Haddow

Douglas Haddow — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:34:00 +0000

“Why single out abortionists or anti-abortionists from, say, Maple Leafs fans?”

I don’t think Maple Leaf fans have ever blown anything up, nor have they had reason to in the last 40-odd years. Canuck fans on the other hand …

By: bwcbwc

bwcbwc — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:31:00 +0000

But even then, it’s not a fair characterization. Every single-issue movement has its nuts. Why single out abortionists or anti-abortionists from, say, Maple Leafs fans? (Or whatever group contains the Canadian equivalent of soccer hooligans as a subset)

By: jmcgarry

jmcgarry — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:30:00 +0000

That would explain soooo much.

By: Ben Ehlers

Ben Ehlers — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:20:00 +0000

Note to self: When starting a militant group, make sure you have two special interests.

By: chgoliz

chgoliz — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:20:00 +0000

Whether or not the “abortionist” reference was a typo, there’s still a trend in the listing of presumed terrorists:

- militant minority rights activists….but not white supremacists;
- abortionists….but not organized groups of religious zealots;
- animal rights activists and ecological/environmental extremists….but not the executives of the companies that knowingly and willfully cause widespread death and destruction to animals or property because it’s easier and more profitable than finding a less extreme option.

When terrorism is defined as a liberal mechanism, only liberals will be recognized as terrorists.