Home, safe and sound!

As my son’s high school co-op placement put him about a block from the US Embassy – and right in the heart of today’s shooting incident, he and I got caught in the area lockdown.

Yes, as soon as I heard what was happening, I rushed to his place of work and got into the building just moments before they locked it down.

However, we are now home and safe!


UPATE:  The victim and the shooter have been identified.

The victim is Cpl. Nathan Cirillo – my deepest sympathies go to his family and friends.

The shooter is Michael Zehef-Bibeau and was known to the police’.

‘Ottawa officials say he was recently designated a “high-risk traveller” by the Canadian government and that his  passport had been seized – the same circumstances surrounding the case of Martin Rouleau-Couture, the Quebecker who was shot Monday after running over two Canadian Forces soldiers.’

I hear ISIL has a nice photo of him they are circulating…when I get a link, I’ll update.

Posted in about. 20 Comments »

20 Responses to “Home, safe and sound!”

  1. peterodonnell Says:

    People who are agitating for an end to Muslim immigration need to wake up to the fact that so far, it’s 2 for 2 on home-grown converts. Evil knows no national boundaries. This is actually the phenomenon which many have missed — radical Islam is attracting the attention and then the support of various disturbed and crazy individuals whose main motivation for joining is that it gives them a reason to go out killing people. I’m not that convinced that religion is the main component of this motivation although they do apparently make some show of accepting the faith as their justification. But really they are the same sort of people who used to hurl bombs at aristocrats in the 19th century, only the cover story has changed.

    For that half of the Canadian public that you might call useful idiots, illusions were probably shattered today. For the rest of us, we knew this was coming and tried to tell people it was coming. Read the transcripts.

    • xanthippa Says:

      True, too true!

    • Voice of Reason Says:

      “radical Islam is attracting the attention and then the support of various disturbed and crazy individuals whose main motivation for joining is that it gives them a reason to go out killing people”

      Roger, this is completely true.

      However, it is not the only political/religious belief that is causing people to kill innocents. Example: How about the maniac in New Brunswick who was far more lethal than this a-hole in Ottawa?

      This is exactly why we need hate crime laws, to help stop some of the crap that triggers these violent defective individuals. I realize that is not the popular opinion on this blog, but I believe, as do many Canadians, that this is the way to reduce this kind of random and lethal violence.

      • xanthippa Says:

        You do, of course, realize that criminalizing anything drives it underground and, in the long run, gives it more power.

        I, for one, do not wish to give power to hate – which is why I want it exposed, refuted and ridiculed.

        It seems that we both want the same result – but the method you have suggested has been demonstrated over and over to fail and to fail spectacularly.

        Give freedom a chance!

      • peterodonnell Says:

        Hate speech laws would not have had any impact on the New Brunswick case, really. Even if you go back to the Montreal student massacre of 1989 (I think) the act was not preceded by a lot of actionable declarations but that was somewhat before the internet age.

        I will give you one free pass on using my real-world name but find that there can only be one plausible reason for doing that unless you’re my golf buddy or my wife, which I doubt, and that one reason is to offer a subtle form of intimidation as in “we are watching you and noting what you say.”

        Guess what, I don’t give a crap. I’ve found a way around all this, it’s called being 65. And very close to the border too, maybe I’ll see what that First Amendment hoo-hah is all about.

        Okay, _____ ?

        (really I have no clue, you sound too rational to be the usual suspects)

        and Xan, would I be overstepping to ask that you edit out real world names offered in response to any future posts by myself or anyone else? There is no implied rule on the internet that if you ever had to go to court, you are now to be routinely “outed” in this fashion. If you find this too restrictive I would have to reconsider posting here. Thanks.

      • xanthippa Says:

        My apologies.

        I did not think you minded – but will most definitely respect your wishes.

      • Voice of Reason Says:

        I think hate crime laws should be enforced inside a mosque when somebody preaches hatred against others… such as jews.

        My method has not failed. We are a very peaceful and tolerant nation. That is our strength and it was demonstrated many, many times this week in the aftermath of these two attacks.

      • xanthippa Says:

        Remember the Weimar republic and its hate speech laws? Enacted ‘for the protection of Jews from hate speech?

        They were almost identical to our now defunct ‘Section 13’! A survey of the Jewish leaders at the time showed them to be satisfied with how these hate speech laws were protecting them…

        Remember how it worked out for them in the long run?

        If 5 million murdered Jews is ‘not a failure of your method’ then one is left to ask: what was the end ‘your method’ was attempting to achieve. Because the ONLY way ‘your method’ can be deemed as ‘not failed’ is if you actually aimed for genocide…

      • peterodonnell Says:

        Xan, no worries, it’s a somewhat ambiguous situation, at this point names are interchangeable but at the same time there is a surprising lack of interest in these legal cases away from here and what remains of FD, and I think that’s because the censorship battle just became too intimidating for many, hence the exodus of certain members from FD — the excuse of being offended may have been partially true for some but I think others realized this was more than armchair anti-communism as could easily have been practised by anyone with a subscription to National Review back in the 1970s. There again, actual confrontation with actual communists required a bit more effort and involved considerably more risk. I paid with the loss of a career. You know in your own circumstances what can be lost.

        There’s more I could say but that should suffice. Thanks, POD.

      • Anomaly Says:

        I too agree that these individuals are attracted to what they see as an outlet for their actions. However I think what they mostly see is the media hysteria fomented by propaganda.

  2. peterodonnell Says:

    Well at least your little corner of the blogosphere is still open to the public as a source of non-contaminated discussion (not contaminated by the virus of political correctness, although also not immne from occasional eruptions of it). As you know, Free Dominion was closed down by a chain of actions that began with our elites becoming concerned that their narratives were not being slavishly followed. And one of those narratives was that Islam formed no danger, neither did linkages between radical Islam and the far left.

    Guess again, poindexters.

    • Voice of Reason Says:

      No, FD was shut down because they don’t know when to apologize and click on the delete button.

      They, and you Sir, are in this trouble because you refuse to back down. Learn the great Canadian art of apology.

      • xanthippa Says:

        Had you attended the trial, you would have heard the evidence that offering an apology and taking the offending words down would NOT have prevented a lawsuit, as the plaintiff was looking for a pretext to sue.

        But, you know that as I have written this before – why do you insist on asserting a demonstrable untruth?

      • Maikeru Says:

        FreeDominion isn’t shut down.
        The hosts and member P.o.D have nothing to apologize for – quite the opposite.
        The ‘art of apology’ was formerly know as ‘appeasement’.
        Didn’t work then, and won’t work now.

      • Voice of Reason Says:

        I read your reports. I remember you saying that the offended parties first contacted Connie to have the posts removed.

        I do not know what went on in the courtroom, except for what you wrote (and thank you very much for those reports). But .. I was a member of that board at the time. I completely remember the venom directed at the offended parties. There was no apology and I think I remember several links to where a person could read the offending comments. Was this mentioned in the trials? Do I remember that correctly?

        Seriously, these lawsuits would have gone nowhere if the site owners did the right thing in the first place. They dug in their heels. That was a mistake. I said so at the time and boy was I hated for it. Many people left the board right after it, by the way. Most of those people were moderate Tory supporters who did not want to be associated with what was going on there.

      • xanthippa Says:

        You are correct in saying that the complained-of material was not immediately removed, nor was an apology for it offered.

        But, evidence was also presented in court that while the plaintiff was demanding apology and a takedown – or lawsuit – this was not an honest position but rather empty posturing. Other communication that occurred elsewhere – but was entered into evidence – demonstrated that regardless of what the Fourniers did, the plaintiff was planning to silence by the use of courts.

        And, that I have written about more than once or twice…

        By the way – the site owners DID do the right thing: they refused to give in to a cyber bully. Bullying is bad – and standing up to bullies is good. And necessary!

        Or, are you implying that the ‘right’ way to deal with bullies is to hand over the proverbial lunch money and hope they don’t beat you up too much this time around? Because with bullies, there will always be a next time, and then a next time, and so on and so until the bully rules over everyone.

      • Maikeru Says:

        Seriously, these lawsuits would have gone nowhere if the site owners did the right thing in the first place. They dug in their heels. That was a mistake. I said so at the time and boy was I hated for it. Many people left the board right after it, by the way. Most of those people were moderate Tory supporters who did not want to be associated with what was going on there.

        Who could blame them ?

        The ‘first ‘lawsuit was derived from CHRAct Sec 13.1 persecutions, and specifically by a CHRC Complaint against FreeDominion back in the summer of 2007, and yes, there was a sharp drop in active/new membership after comments by 35 different members, gleaned from several threads over a three-month period, were cited in Court documents.

        Your opinion above has much in common with similar views expressed by former FreeDominion member Harry Abrams, whose many posts there occurred some time after the first suit was triggered, and reflect the moderate nature of the forum – if not all members.

      • peterodonnell Says:

        I suppose that the only real importance of any of these court cases would be that they provide a sort of faint hope that Canadians might come to realize that much greater resistance is required to the widespread popularity of political correctness agendas that will, over the course of decades, slowly but surely transform Canada into a totalitarian society with almost no freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, or freedom of association. People will think they are living in a paradise of sorts, as long as they can turn off the critical reasoning functions in their minds and accept whatever nonsense ideology of the month is being offered to them. I am reminded of that old Monty Python skit, “we lived in cardboard box on motorway, licked the pavement for our supper, and we liked it.”

        And our elitist masters like watching you do just that, mes amis.

        They like to take videos and share them at their lodge meetings.

  3. CodeSlinger Says:


    Speaking of linkages between radical Islam and the far left…

    The more thoroughly feminized the West becomes, the more attractive Islam looks to young Western males.

    Modern Western culture brutalizes the self-esteem of young men, and the easiest way to paper over that gaping psychic scar is to become a Muslim.

    And the more mosques in Canada, the easier it gets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: