May 2010 Attack on Ottawa Bank: Arson or terrorism?

[Michael OLeary]

I disagree with that interpretation of what is terrorist act, as they were not targeting people and out to produce terror.

How narrow is your definition of terrorism?

Criminal Code  -  C-46

“terrorism offence” means
(a) an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 or 83.18 to 83.23,
(b) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group,
(c) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, or
(d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/20100620/page-3.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp1=terrorism&rp4=all&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#anchorbo-ga:l_II_1

Providing or collecting property for certain activities

83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), or
(b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

2001, c. 41, s. 4.

The specific targeting of people" is NOT a requirement.

Read a few of the other referenced sections to learn what the legal definition of terrorism is in this country.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And that's what makes this country great. So, if and when, the authorities decide thay are terrorists and the courts prosecute them as such and they are sentenced as such, you can continue to disagree............................while they are serving their time as terrorists and plotting their revenge from their jailcells.

However, nothing we say will change your mind, and vica versa. So for everyone involved in this endless charade what say we drop the whole line of discussion. It's going nowhere. It's the reason for the past lock and it getting too close to the real fun to lock it again.
Milnet.ca Staff

Am I talking to myself here?

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

This discussion is interesting in that it replicates the same discussions (maybe without the emotion here) that is going on at the international level.  So far there is no agreed upon common definition among the international community of terrorism and what constitutes a terrorist act.  Even the UN has failed to come to a consensus on what defines terrorism.  Bruce Hoffman is one of the West's leading experts of international terrorism.  He would suggest a few checks that might help in parsing terrorism from a criminal act and maybe they help here:
Was the aim and the motives of the attack political in nature? 
Was the attack violent or threaten violence?
Was the attack set up and executed to have psychological repercussions / effects beyond the immediacy of the event.  Second and third order effects?
Was the attack conducted by a group with some type of structure (ie chain of command or hierarchy, etc)?
Were the alleged attackers a sub national group or non-state entity?

However, I would caution that Hoffman is internationally focused in his work and most of his benefactors (those organizations that pay him) are internationally focused therefore his work is not necessarily domestic oriented.

Of interest is that the US National Counter Terrorism Centre defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated by sub national groups against non-combatant targets.  Perhaps this helps?

I think though for the sake of the issue here which is now before the courts, Michael O’Leary is correct.  It is the CCC that will define what these people will finally be labelled as no matter what personal opinions may be.  This will be an good one to follow. 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"several rounds??" First the police make it sound like these guys have a whole arsenal of military grade .50 and 7.62 mm ammo, then its just 7.62 mm and now its just "several rounds."

Looks like I stand corrected. I was reading the Ottawa Sun this afternoon and they were reporting that the police found " several hundred rounds." Looks like a little confusion in the reporting.

 

[57Chevy]

(Sprinting Thistle)
You are quite right that it will be interesting to follow as to the outcome regarding the terrorist
aspect of their crime. I have been looking into the few items that follow:
                _________________________________________________
Critical Studies on Terrorism

Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2009, 237–256

Confusion and misrepresentation plague discourse on ‘terrorism’. The term is misapplied
to actions far removed from violent mass-casualty attacks or peacetime equivalents
of war crimes. This article examines how the term is misapplied to non-violent actions of
animal rights groups to undermine opposition to animal exploitation industries.
Keywords: animal rights; eco-terrorism; green scare; propaganda

Introduction

Discourse on ‘terrorism’ is plagued by confusion and misrepresentation. Definitions
number in the hundreds. The United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime (n.d.) notes
Schmid’s proposal that terrorism be defined as the peacetime equivalent of a war crime,
but adopts his definition as the academic consensus:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid 1988)

Terrorism’s main characteristic is the deliberate intent to kill humans. In contrast, even
when activists have committed illegal activities and property destruction, they have
ensured no humans were harmed. (In one rare case, Brian Cass, Managing Director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, was assaulted in 2001 by David Blenkinsop, who received a
three-and-a-half year prison sentence.) ALF guidelines mandate non-violence and ‘all
necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human’ (ALF n.d.).
Despite media emphasis on ‘terrorism’, no ALF actions have caused human fatalities
suggesting that as ‘terrorists’ these individuals are spectacularly ineffective. Certainly,
explosives and arson present potential danger to innocent passersby or firefighters who
may be harmed unintentionally. (Baker [2001] cites one case from 1990 in which a
bystander was injured when a bomb exploded beneath Bristol University psychologist
Patrick Max Headley’s car; although police blamed the ALF, no one claimed responsibility and ALF founder Ronnie Lee denied ALF involvement.) Nevertheless, determination to avoid harm certainly conflicts with deliberate murder as the ‘central idea’ of terrorism, as outlined above.

            ___________________________________________________________


With that in mind, although I personally feel that their actions were of a terrorist nature, and well defined as terrorism as per the CCC, they will in all likelyhood receive the lesser of the two crimes. Which is arson.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Actually no. The reason that they mention it is because it is standard procedure for almost all police depts to put a bad light on firearms owners. If you, for whatever reason, receive a visit from your local constabulary and they decide they have cause to remove your lawful firearms, the following will appear in the local news.

"Police remove a veritable arsenal and thousands of rounds of ammo from local."

What did they really get? They got your centrefire deer gun, your .22 rifle and your shotgun that you get ducks and partridge with. 4x25 12 guage shells (25 ea of slug, #4, #7, #8 shot), 50x centrefire(165 gr for deer & 200 for moose) and two bricks of .22 (1000 rds) that you use to spend afternoons at the range with your son or daughter. Total count 1150 rds.

If your rifle has a detachable box mag or a pistol grip, it will be invariably described as a high powered assault rifle. If it is scoped, the latest ploy is to call it a high powered sniper weapon.

Unlawful storage charges amongst others, whether firearms or ammo, are often maliciously laid in order to gain bargaining power and force the defendent to spend thousands of needless dollars on legal defence. In many cases it works. The defendent can't afford the time or money to fight it and surrenders his guns and accepts a weapons prohibition to make it go away. A good lawyer, time and money will normally see these charges tossed.

The fact is, most police are not familiar with the firearms laws simply because thery are not required to have a PAL or RPAL for their service weapon. Just like soldiers. Ergo they have never taken the courses or spent the time to learn the chaotic and contradictory bowl of spaghetti laws, that normal firearms owners have to learn.

For the cops, it's all abour PR and lots of good evil looking PR means more funds. And that's what the whole blown up rhetoric boils down to.

The police also have a habit of using the "shotgun " approach to laying charges. They fire everything that they can think of on the theory that (1) it will frighten the suspect into confessing and (2) hoping that at least some of the charges will stick.

 

[old medic]

Charge anarchists with terrorism
Last Updated: June 22, 2010 5:14am
http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/editorial/2010/06/21/14468331.html

Terrorism charges must be laid against the three suspected anarchists accused of firebombing an Ottawa bank last month in the lead-up to the high anxiety of this week's G8-G20 summits.

Not only was an RBC bombed, direct threats were made that such violence would be levelled in Toronto and Ontario cottage country where world leaders will discuss exactly what these anarchists love to hate -- global capitalism.

As the group boldly promised, "We will be there!"

So the time is now to make examples of these idiots, who taunted police by posting a "catch us if you can" video of the firebombing, by coming down hard on them with terrorism indictments -- a "we'll teach you" upgrade from the arson, explosive and mischief charges they now face.

Two of the suspects -- Claude Haridge, 50, an engineer and electronics "enthusiast," and Roger Clement, 58, a federal bureaucrat retired, paradoxically, from the Canadian International Development Agency -- were remanded Monday in an Ottawa court.

The third suspect, Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, once arrested for assaulting a cop during a 2007 North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que., has a bail hearing Friday.

Let's hope he, too, will be watching the G8-G20 from the confines of a jail cell.

Ottawa, after all, is only a five-hour drive from Toronto, all which would give Morgan-Brown plenty of room to get there in time for Molotov-cocktail hour.

This cannot be allowed.

He must remain behind bars, and be prosecuted for domestic terrorism along with his two comrades -- members of the obscure Fighting for Freedom Coalition (FFFC).

The possibility of this happening is now being evaluated by the RCMP to determine if the case "meets the threshold" for terrorism indictments.

Seems like a no-brainer.

All the RCMP then needs is for Attorney General Rob Nicholson to sign off, and the deal is done.

Remember, not only was a bank firebombed, and overt threats posted concerning the G8-G20 summit, but police also discovered "hundreds of rounds" of 7.62-millimetre bullets packed in boxes first thought to hold .50-calibre sniper rounds.

Some media went to great length to clarify this.

What that same media didn't say, however, is that 7.62-millimetre ammo is what's used to load up AK-47s.

Now you know.

:

 

[ModlrMike]

What that same media didn't say, however, is that 7.62-millimetre ammo is what's used to load up AK-47s.

Interesting point. Do we know if it was 7.62 x 39 or some other variant?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Now you're expecting the reporter to know that there are different types of 7.62 mm rounds? You don't expect much do you?

Please don't muddy the waters of sensationalism with your obscure facts.    ;D

 

[ModlrMike]

More of a rhetorical question really.  ;D

 

[old medic]

I emailed them and pointed out that fact.  I doubt they'll change it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

- edited to include latest in court process -

I emailed them and pointed out that fact.  I doubt they'll change it.

Or even get back to you.

Meanwhile, "Firebomb suspects seek bail before G20":

Two of the three men charged in connection with the firebombing of a Glebe Bank want bail hearings by the end of the week, soon enough that they could be released before the start of this weekend’s G20 summit in Toronto.  Clad in orange jail-issue coveralls, Roger Clement, Claude Frederic Haridge and Matthew Morgan-Brown made a brief appearance by video in an Ottawa courtroom Monday. All three were arrested Friday in connection with the May 18 firebombing of a Bank Street Royal Bank branch that caused more than $500,000 in damage. An anarchist group, Fighting for Freedom Coalition-Ottawa, later took responsibility for the bombing, which was recorded in a “catch me if you can” video posted online. The group also warned that its members would be “present” at the G20 summit ....

 

[mellian]

Couple of articles I found which may or may be interesting...

http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/06/ottawa-rbc-firebombing-terrorism-seeded.html

Ottawa RBC firebombing – Terrorism seeded by the University of Ottawa?

by Denis G. Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa


http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/blog/jesse-freeston/3735

Sacco and Vanzetti in Ottawa: How Media and Police are Politicizing the RBC Arson Case

BLOG POST  posted on June 23, 2010  by Jesse Freeston 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ottawa Police fan the flames

The Ottawa Police have added to the show-trial appearance of the case. The original statement from the Ottawa Police, during a Saturday morning press conference, was that .50 caliber "sniper-style" ammunition was recovered during a raid of Haridge's home. The police sent out a release later in the day to say that the ammunition was actually 7.62mm. Both kinds of bullets are legal, but 7.62mm ammo is not used in sniper rifles.

I was mildly amused by both articles, until I read the statement quoted above. A simple 'Google' check would have saved the author's credibility...........maybe not. At any rate, both articles are of no real interest or carry any weight in the real world. Plain old anti establishment rhetoric, and not very good at that. Jerry Rubin would laugh his ass off at the amateurism of this bunch, if he was still alive.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Ottawa Citizen:

Roger Clément, one of the men accused of firebombing a bank in the Glebe last May, has been denied bail by an Ottawa judge.

Clement was arrested on June 18 along with Claude Haridge and Matthew Morgan-Brown in connection with the May 18 firebombing of a Bank Street Royal Bank branch that caused more than $500,000 in damage. An anarchist group, Fighting for Freedom Coalition-Ottawa, later claimed responsibility for the bombing, which was recorded in a "catch me if you can" video posted online

Clement was charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, use of explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief. Morgan-Brown is facing the same charges as Clement, while Haridge was charged with mischief and careless storage of ammunition.

Haridge was released on $100,000 bail Friday with conditions that includes an order not to communicate with any protest groups related to the G8 or G20 or aboriginal issues.

Haridge was also ordered to report to police daily, not go within 10 metres of any Ottawa RBC branch and not possess any weapons or ammunition.

He was also ordered not to communicate with his co-accused or anyone else with a criminal record, and to surrender his passport.

(....)

Morgan-Brown was to appear in court by video link on Monday to set a date for his own bail hearing.

Caption for attached:

Charged in the firebombing of the Royal Bank on Bank Streetin he Glebe, May 18, are, from left, Claude Haridge, Matthew Morgan Brown and Roger Clement. The three acused appeared in an Ottawa courtroom June 19, 2010.
Photograph by: Ronn Sutton, The Ottawa Citizen

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
2nd RBC bombing suspect granted bail

06/08/2010 5:38:58 PM
CBC News

LINK

A justice of the peace has ordered the release of one of three men charged in connection with the firebombing of a Royal Bank branch in Ottawa in May.


Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, has been in custody since he was arrested on June 18.

Both Morgan-Brown and 58-year-old Roger Clement were charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material and using explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief.

A third man, Claude Haridge, 50, faces lesser charges of careless storage and handling of ammunition. He was granted bail last month.

Clement and Haridge have also been charged with mischief in connection with an incident of alleged vandalism at the same bank last February.

Clement was denied bail in June.

Justice of the peace Richard Sculthorpe ordered Morgan-Brown's release Friday after Morgan-Brown posted a $5,000 bond. As conditions of his release, he was ordered to not attend any organized protests, to stay away from RBC branches and not to communicate with the other two men accused in the incident.

Morgan-Brown is not yet free, however, as he must still serve a few more days of a 20-day sentence in Quebec for taking part in a blockade near Maniwaki.

Morgan-Brown's lawyer Ian Carter said the justice of the peace's decision to release his client reflected the weakness of the Crown's case.

"He is looking forward to getting out and preparing to fight the allegations in court," Carter said.

The firebombing attracted national attention after a video of the incident appeared on an independent media website the following day.

A message accompanying the video, signed by a group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa, claimed RBC was targeted for its sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics.

Morgan-Brown is scheduled to make another court appearance on Sept. 27

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Third of three firebombing suspects granted bail

Longtime protester must still serve sentence from Maniwaki blockade


By Andrew Seymour, The Ottawa Citizen August 7, 2010

LINK

The third of three men arrested in connection with the firebombing of a Glebe bank has been granted bail.

Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, let out a loud sigh of relief as Justice of the Peace Richard Sculthorpe ordered him released on a $5,000 bond and several strict conditions. Morgan-Brown will have to wait a few days before leaving jail, however, as he is still serving a 20-day jail sentence in Quebec he received on July 29 for his participation in a blockade near Maniwaki.

Morgan-Brown, a longtime protester for various causes, has been in custody since his arrest with two other men in June for his alleged involvement in the firebombing that caused more than half a million dollars in damage to a Bank Street Royal Bank branch on May 18.

A video of the bombing was posted online shortly after the arson, claiming it had to do with the bank's involvement in the Vancouver Olympics.

Morgan-Brown is charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage and mischief.

Retired civil servant Roger Clement, 58, is facing similar charges, while Claude Frederic Haridge, 50, is facing charges related to the careless storage of ammunition. Clement and Haridge are also charged in relation to the vandalism of another Ottawa Royal Bank branch in February.

Clement remains in custody, although his lawyer has said he intends to ask for a review of that detention.

Conditions of Morgan-Brown's release include not to participate in protests, go within seven metres of a Royal Bank branch unless he is driving past in a vehicle, communicate with his two co-accused or possess any weapons or explosives.

The evidence presented during the bail hearing, as well as Sculthorpe's reasons for releasing him, are covered by a publication ban. Such bans are routinely applied to bail proceedings because the Crown gets to present evidence with little reply from the defence.

Morgan-Brown will next appear in court Sept. 27.

aseymour@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more on Roger Clement in the Ottawa Citizen.

Read more on Matthew Morgan-Brown in the Ottawa Citizen.

 

[Good2Golf]

I would fully support the Royal Bank suing these individuals to recover a portion of the damages that they caused. 

 

[Journeyman]

I would fully support the Royal Bank suing these individuals to recover a portion of the damages that they caused. 

Which of course implies a degree of responsibility for one's behaviour. Interesting concept.

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting development in the RBC Bank Firebombing in Ottawa:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
RBC firebomber pleads guilty



09/11/2010 11:58:29 AM
CBC News

LINK

An Ottawa man has pleaded guilty to firebombing a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Ottawa's Glebe neighbourhood last spring.

Roger Clement, 58, entered the plea Tuesday morning.

Surveillance video from the bank showed a man pouring a liquid, thought to be gasoline, into the lobby of the building. Clement admitted to being that man.

Charges against Matthew Morgan-Brown, 32, were stayed.

A prosecutor said there was too little evidence to try him.

A third man, Claude Haridge, 50, was facing lesser charges of careless storage and handling of ammunition. Those charges were stayed, as well.

The details of Clement's role in the May 18 arson weren't revealed Tuesday. That's expected to happen during sentencing, which begins Dec. 6.

A statement posted online the day of the firebombing said the act was a protest against Royal Bank's financing of the Alberta oilsands and its sponsorship of the Vancouver Olympics, which exacerbated the "criminalization and displacement of those living in extreme poverty" in Canada's third-largest city