6 ms·
‘Anti-petroleum’ movement a growing security threat to Canada, RCMP say
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- higherpurpose 12y agoJust make sure you buy the self-driving remote-controlled kill-me-now-intelligence-agencies model. It will be just so much easier for everyone.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- fit2rule 12y agoI'd assume that the logic is that Canadas' economic survival depends on its petroleum-product industries and anyone interfering with that is going to cause major harm to Canadas' survival as an oil-addled state. It is probably true that revenues generated by the oil industry are propping up the state, but then the RCMP should be doing a danger report on that, and not its own citizens. Probably easier for the gun-totin' types to deal with dirty stoned hippies than high-falutin' government economics-terrorists though, I'd imagine ..
- astrodust 12y agoCanada isn't as dependent on petroleum as Venezuela or Russia, but that resource is extremely profitable when prices are high so it often out-paces other industries in terms of margins. There are other natural resource industries unaffected by this. Saudi Arabia isn't flooding the market with trees or minerals. There's also a large manufacturing base.
- fit2rule 12y agoWho gives a fuck, if you live in Canada? I'd like to, personally.
- screwedup 12y ago".. concludes the report which is stamped “protected/Canadian eyes only” I smell a Canadexploitation ripoff of James Bond...
- PeterWhittaker 12y agoOh, you mean Spyfall? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3462616/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3462616/
- fredleblanc 12y ago> “There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” Anti-Canada petroleum movement, or Canadian anti-petroleum movement? This doesn't seem like an accidental word re-arrangement.
- Shivetya 12y agothe suggestion is, as in the US, that a lot of groups are receiving support from outside their respective countries. There is a lot of money to be lost for other counties should the US and Canada develop their resources to their fullest and unlike many other current oil producers there is the ability to exploit freedom expression and movement to limit this expansion of resource development.
- glesica 12y agoI don't see how that can possibly be taken seriously when, in the US at least, politicians openly take donations and swear allegiance to foreign interests. Additionally, if money leads directly to terrorism, then why not also investigate the companies that stand to make money by exploiting these resources? There is a long, bloody history of companies committing violent acts (in the US at least) to protect their economic interests against peaceful activists and protests.
- wavefunction 12y agoCommerce is king in the US, so it's "alright" for politicians to accept money from outside sources as long as it can even slightly be cast as "pro-business." Many common Americans don't agree with this necessarily, but there are enough that do or have been misled by propaganda that the "pro-business" agenda is given free-rein in this country.
- glesica 12y agoThat was my point, I don't see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that a protester taking a foreign donation is "dangerous". It is just an absurd excuse for the politicians to do what they want to do for their own, less publicly acceptable, reasons.
- huxley 12y ago"The government has tabled Bill C-51, which provides greater power to the security agencies to collect information on and disrupt the activities of suspected terrorist groups." FYI for any Americans reading this, when a bill is tabled in Canada, it means the opposite of what you think it does, the bill is put forward for discussion rather than suspending discussion indefinitely.
- stormbrew 12y agoAlso, when we have a majority government as we do now, a bill that is tabled by the government will almost certainly pass.
- marssaxman 12y agoAs an American, "tabling" to mean suspending has always seemed backwards! We say "on the table" to describe possibilities we are considering and "off the table" to describe options which have been rejected, so I don't understand why people say "tabling" to mean "removing it from consideration".
- badsock 12y agoThere's an election coming up. The terrorism boogeyman has been so expedient in America that the Conservative Party is trying to invent a similar threat.
- api 12y agohttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/28/claim-russia-funding-anti-fracking-groups/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/28/claim-russia-fund...
- strictnein 12y agoRussia and the companies in the UAE fund a lot of the "environmental" groups in the US.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rodgerd 12y agoIt's a short step from linking breitbart to linking RT, the Daily Mail, or, hell, Stormfront.
- anonbanker 12y agoRemember, Russia is our enemy, so their media is automatically as bad as a White Supremacist website.
- ck2 12y agoIsn't Canada also being crushed by Saudi dumping cheap oil? Pretty sure that is a bigger threat to them than protesters. When exactly did the US and Canada turn into primary exporters of expensive oil, crazy times.
- wavefunction 12y agoThere's a simple solution to this supposed "anti-Canada" activity and it's for Canada to build the pipeline over to British Columbia. Then y'all won't have to worry about dealing with US "anti-petroleum forces" and we won't have to worry about your oil spilling on our land on its way to China.
- BrainInAJar 12y agothe people of BC (but not the government unfortunately) are understandably opposed to the pipeline as well. It benefits BC to the tune of 50-someodd jobs
- pharke 12y ago> The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has already launched challenges... ... over alleged surveillance of groups opposed to the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. Anti-Canada activity if you do, anti-Canada activity if you don't.
- oxryly1 12y agoAnyone else catch how activity these groups engage in "jeopardizes [...] the natural environment"? Sweet, sweet irony.