...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

The Star’s lame post mortem: After consistently downplaying the Toronto 18 terror plot, the one which led to one of the young conspirators being convicted last week (with more convictions likely to come), the Toronto Star clues in (kind of, sort of, not really) to the fact that, just because terrorist-wannabes are young and naïve and newbies in the art of jihadi havoc, that doesn’t preclude their being a genuine threat (my bolds):

Canada's first successful terror prosecution since 9/11 did not land an Osama bin Laden-size fish. Far from it. Our first homegrown terrorist turns out to be a naive 17-year-old, more to be pitied than feared.

But Justice John Sproat of Ontario Superior Court sent two stern signals Thursday to those who feel drawn to do violence against the public, as he found the youth guilty of knowingly participating in terrorist activities: Canadian law provides no free pass for bumbling terrorists, and naivete is no defence.

Sproat forcefully rejected the view that the 2006 "Toronto 18" terror plot should be laughed out of court as the fantasy of "a hapless fanatic who posed no risk." He was equally dismissive of efforts to portray the defendant as an innocent. He attended a training camp where people spoke of sharing Al Qaeda's "principles and methods," and of "striking" at North American targets, and where a gun was fired.

Critics of Canada's beefed-up anti-terror laws have long worried that innocents may be swept up in their net. Indeed the Star has criticized the laws, including their provisions for preventive arrest and self-incrimination. But in this case, the police appear to have disrupted a real conspiracy, at least as far as the judge saw it.

Given the youth's age, a lenient sentence is in order. But after the Air India bombing and 9/11, Canada's courts are not disposed to treat terror lightly. Nor should they be.

Sounds to me like the Star wants to have it both ways—commending the judge for taking the threat seriously (something the Star was disinclined to do; the judge’s withering words about those who thought the terror plot should be “laughed out of court” since these “innocents” posed “no risk” accurately describes the paper’s coverage)—and still, still, harping on the “youth’s” ineptitude, naivete, and pitifulness.

“More to be pitied than feared”? Save your pity, silly sob-sisters, for those who deserve it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments (4)

Comments:

#1  28 September 2008 - 15:28

 

Sproat J. deserves a knighthood (or whatever the Canucki equivalent is). I have some guarded optimism that the balance of the jihadis, qua adults, will be convicted.

Of course, it does nothing to prevent future outbreaks of Sudden Jihad Syndrome...

Anonymous

#2  28 September 2008 - 15:34

 

It's more insidious, scaramouche:

Critics of Canada's beefed-up anti-terror laws have long worried that innocents may be swept up in their net. Indeed the Star has criticized the laws, including their provisions for preventive arrest and self-incrimination. But in this case, the police appear to have disrupted a real conspiracy, at least as far as the judge saw it.

This reads like a first-year Pol-Sci student's work at a second-tier Canuckistani uni- the snide, disbelieving tone as to the threat and the implicit disparaging of the response by the State authorities. Typical of the Red Star, but worrisome in that so many read this tripe.

Anonymous

#3  28 September 2008 - 17:42

 

#1 Mo'--The equivalent would be an Order of Canada, and we certainly wouldn't want to inflict one of those in the good judge. Then again, given this verdict, he's unlikely to win one, since, generally speaking, the "award" goes to people like Henry Morgenthaler and the Star's very own beloved (and, I'm told, feared) editorial page editor emeritus, Harpoon Siddiqui.

#2 Mo'--yes, I noticed that too: "the judge may have convicted, but here at the Star, where we pay obeisance to those Atkinson principles, we're dubious that the "young offender" (such a naive, impressionable lad) got his just desserts."

scaramouche

#4  29 September 2008 - 09:47

 

Doesn't that piece of journalistic poo-poo known as Haroon Siddiqui write for THE TORONTO STAR?

When THE TORONTO STAR numbers among its "staff" an apologist for the Islamofacsist forces, I think "debate" about precisely what THE TORONTO STAR is quite unnecessary.

THE TORONTO STAR is an MSM rag - under-researched, biased, partisan, badly written and largely irrelevant.

I have family members who swear by THE TORONTO STAR. I apologize. Stupidity can happen in the best of families...

Anonymous

Comments: