babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Janine Kreiber: Abortion issue could be next domestic terror threat

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Janine Kreiber: Abortion issue could be next domestic terror threat
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 18 June 2008 06:28 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Janine Kreiber, Stéphane Dion's wife, gave this response to a question about terrorism on Tuesday:

quote:
Janine Krieber says the next potential domestic terrorism threat is the abortion issue.

While her answer to a teacher’s question was a surprise to some of the 50 people in a Fleming College classroom Tuesday, Krieber, an expert in international relations, military strategy and the sociology of conflict, said “All social cession, social dividing is a potential threat either high or low.”

Krieber, the wife of federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, had just completed an hour-long discussion on the history of terrorism and the state.

“The problem I see, for the moment, coming next is that we bring back abortion discussions into society. We had problems before and if we bring that back too severely it will bring conflict.”

Krieber later told The Examiner her response was based on a demonstration earlier this month in Montreal. About 1,000 people protested the federal government’s proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act Bill C-484.

“When we forecast terrorism we have to look at what are the controversial topics in a society,” Krieber said.


Link


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 18 June 2008 07:25 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good for her, as it is terrorism against women!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 18 June 2008 08:11 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Good for her, as it is terrorism against women!


My understanding was that she is implying that pro-choice people will instigate terror attacks - which I thought was rather far-fetched.

Does anyone else share my understanding?


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 18 June 2008 08:24 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
My understanding was that she is implying that pro-choice people will instigate terror attacks - which I thought was rather far-fetched.

Does anyone else share my understanding?


Terror attacks against whom? I answered women.

No, I think she meant anti-choice are terrorists.

Thanks PFRD, my misunderstanding of what ghislaine was meaning

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 18 June 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never heard of a pro-choice person planting bombs, committing murder and such.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 18 June 2008 08:34 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
My understanding was that she is implying that pro-choice people will instigate terror attacks - which I thought was rather far-fetched.

Does anyone else share my understanding?


That's how I read it. 1000 people on the march could be 1000 potential suicide bombers.

But, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was just being incoherent (since my understanding is that she is pro-choice).


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 June 2008 08:35 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry for the thread drift, but this caught my attention in the article linked:

The bill has passed second reading in the House of Commons and is now at the committee level.

Holy sh*t! This is bad.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 18 June 2008 08:36 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

That's how I read it. 1000 people on the march could be 1000 potential suicide bombers.

But, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was just being incoherent (since my understanding is that she is pro-choice).


Yes, I would assume she is pro-choice. But I think that was her meaning - that pro-choice people would be planting bombs!


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 18 June 2008 08:41 AM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Honestly, I read this article and it's all over the place. To me it reads as the writer pulling out rather nuanced comment from a larger context to make a good headline or some sort of point and then goes on with a bunch of snippets from her lecture that pack a punch but don't even gell together that well in the way they are related to each other in the article.
Maybe it's a problem with distilation of a rather complex lecture into what to me seems to be a rather badly done sound bite piece. Some comments as related to to others don't even make a whole lot of sense, or at least in the way that I think Krieber was likely making them. This opinion coming from having sat through many such lectures and discussions. To me it comes off as the reporter not really getting it and creating a piece based on their own limited understanding.

This subject usually is complex, but in my opinion I don't think this article really does the whole thing justice and makes it really hard to actually read what she may have actually been saying.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 18 June 2008 09:11 AM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:

Yes, I would assume she is pro-choice. But I think that was her meaning - that pro-choice people would be planting bombs!


Well to try to read what she said according to the way it was written...
She starts off by saying something about abortion being a potential 'terrorism' issue..
Then there's a bit about the listeners being surprised.
Then this snippet...

"The real definition of terrorism, she said, is “an action that is bringing terror.” "

To me this is a very problematic statement, taken on it's own. Without any context this could pretty much apply to anything that causes people fear..which is a very subjective emotion. Frankly it's doubtful that's what she meant.
Then the article goes on, I think to try what she meant. From the article it seems that what she was saying is that in this day and age terrorism isn't just about the physical actions.
Here's where it makes little sense in the way it's written.
We have comments like this
" During her talk, Krieber, who has been on leave from her job as a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada in Saint-Jean, Que. since Dion was elected Liberal leader, said terrorism, a hit and run strategy, isn’t new.

“You hide, you kill and then you run.”

Which makes on think that she may have been suggesting things like bombs and violent tactics..

But then in the very next section:

" Gone today, however, is the traditional battlefield, with terrorism now relying heavily on communication and propaganda, Krieber said.

“They don’t want your house, they don’t want your city. They want your mind.” "

---which suggests talking about something along the lines of non-physical types of terrorism but to me at least my first reaction was "Huh Krieber, what in the heck are you trying to say here? How is this related to all of the comments about increased tensions over the abortion issue and protesting?"
And this is "terrorism" how?

And then the article goes on to basically say that she informed the examiner ie the reporter after the lecture that people really didn't need to fear it. Then theres relating of what appears to be some quotes from that after lecture interview which to me at least don't make total sense with what on the surface appears to be the point or at least the writers perspective on the point of the earlier part of the article.

I really don't think that the reporter understood this lecture very well and in the after the lecture to me it sounds like asked Kreiber a lot of questions based on that bad understanding and Kreiber tried to clarify a lot of points and the writer still didn't really get it but put in some quotes that sounded pretty good and sorta made sense.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 18 June 2008 09:12 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The history of abortion-related terrorism in the U.S. has mostly been on the "anti-" side, with murderous zealots shooting abortion doctors and bombing clinics and such. When I read the article that's what I assumed Krieber was referring to.

I had no idea before reading this thread that Ms. Krieber was an anti-terrorism expert. Anyone familiar with more of her work?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 18 June 2008 09:17 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
IMV, her use of "we have had problems before" indicates just whom she is speaking of. As the only problems we have had before is with anti-choice terrorists.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 18 June 2008 01:06 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
The history of abortion-related terrorism in the U.S. has mostly been on the "anti-" side, with murderous zealots shooting abortion doctors and bombing clinics and such. When I read the article that's what I assumed Krieber was referring to.

And Canada? Wasn't a doctor in BC attacked because they provided abortion services?

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 18 June 2008 01:19 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, in Vancouver, as well, Morgentaler was also attacked with a knife, and Judy Rebick, got the person away from him.

And that is saying nothing of the rest of the anti-choice activities at clinics around Canada, and this Bill C484.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 18 June 2008 01:41 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The real definition of terrorism, she said, is “an action that is bringing terror.”

And this is from a lecturer at Canada's Royal Military College where, presumably, Canada's leading lights on terrorism in the military go to get the latest developments. What pablum. Either the reporter can't handle such a "complex subject" (Krieber) or the lecturer is too used to spoon-feeding soldiers Military Doctrine 101 to provide anything more that self-referential platitudes.

Incidently, I wonder if the lecturer, now that the military manual on the use of terrorism by the USA is a matter of public record, had anything to say on this?

quote:
US Special Forces counter-insurgency manual FM 31-20-3:

The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.


The manual can be found at Wikileaks. Of course, the fact that Canada is entangled in a military alliance with the US (NATO), "defence" agreements (NORAD, etc.) with same, and is busy making our military "interoperable" with the military of that country may be the reason why the lecturer had nothing to say on US state-sponsored terrorism that was worth reporting on.

Manual on counter-insurgency and supporting terrorism by the USA

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 19 June 2008 06:03 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NBeltov, interesting drift, but I am unsure of just how that fits into either Kreiber's words/actions and the subject of the thread.

However, I am prepared to believe that somehow it does, but I really need you to expand a bit on that, if you would not mind.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 June 2008 09:02 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kreiber's cryptic remarks about abortion, which could be taken in a number of ways, seem like a way for the journalist reporting on her presentation to the college to make this story newsworthy somehow, rather than it being an essential part of her presentation.

She's a specialist at an important Canadian Military College on terrorism. And, despite the rather banal and self-referential definition of terrorism from this "expert", and the recent VERY newsworthy report that the US government Special Forces manual makes specific references to terrorism as an instrument of US foreign policy, neither the journalist reporting on the lecture, nor the lecturer herself, seemed to think such things worthy of comments or remarks.

A government whose official documents justify the use of terrorism. One would think that would get some response from a terrorism expert.

Apparently not.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Infosaturated
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12172

posted 22 June 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for Infosaturated     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems like terrible reporting to me. Quotes taken out of context and out of order can be extremely misleading.

quote:
“The problem I see, for the moment, coming next is that we bring back abortion discussions into society. We had problems before and if we bring that back too severely it will bring conflict.”

This, to me, is very clear. She is saying the abortion debate is over. Reopening the topic will bring conflict. I can't argue with that.

An example of the conflict is the demonstration. She is discussing conflict not terrorism. If other comments that she made concerning the same topic referred to terrorism that in no way implies that she is referring to the demonstration which is clearly not terrorism. She is far too intelligent to interpret a demonstration as terrorism and probably assumed her audience would also know the difference.


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Infosaturated
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12172

posted 22 June 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for Infosaturated     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
“There’s some groups that are threatening other different groups but it’s not so dangerous. If we just align the number of victims-direct terrorist attacks, in the whole history, it’s not a lot. That’s not millions of people like real war. So it’s a little bit of an illusion that terrorism is so dangerous,” she said.

That too seems to me a very sensible comment. The threat of terrorism in Canada is way overblown. Personally I am far more concerned about global warming, food security and economic security for the masses than I am about terrorism.


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Infosaturated
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12172

posted 22 June 2008 12:59 PM      Profile for Infosaturated     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Guest lecture: Dr. Janine Krieber

Students in the School of Law, Justice and Community Services learned about terrorism during a lecture by a leading expert in the field.

In her presentation “Terrorism and the State: The New Battlefield,” Dr. Janine Krieber provided a general overview of terrorism – its definition, history, strategy and how it is used in conflicts.

Dr. Krieber teaches Military Strategy at the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, Quebec. She has studied terrorism for 30 years.

Dr. Krieber said that when she started her studies in terrorism, most terrorists were European – located in France, Greece and Italy. They were mostly middle class and well-educated.

“I wanted to know ‘Why them and not me?’” she said. “Why would they take up weapons and kill for political reasons?”

The answer lies in communication, she said. “The way people understand the world around them.”

The definition of terrorism is any action that brings terror into society and can be used by the state or society. More often terrorism is used by society against the state, she said.

“When there is a rebellion, society has to find ways to indirectly attack these organization’s that are very structured…Terrorism is a hit and run strategy.

“The media plays the role of social amplificatory – they amplify terrorism’s effect,” she added.

Terrorism dates back to the Roman Empire but the word originated during the French Revolution, she said.

Terrorism uses propaganda, subversion, and destabilization in its attacks. Using the traditional Western method of military strategy – decisive battle – does not work against terrorists, said Dr. Krieber.

Antiterrorism is a method used to fight terrorism, she said. To fight under this strategy, antiterrorists must use intelligence, infrastructure protection, emergency preparedness, and have the ability for reconstruction – both material and psychological.

Following her 45-minute presentation, Dr. Krieber took questions from students on terrorist threats in Canada, the war in Afghanistan, and the ethics of terrorist activities.

Dr. Krieber is the wife of Liberal Oppostion Leader Stephane Dion. She was touring Peterborough to learn more about the area.

http://www.flemingc.on.ca/index.cfm/go/news/sub/view/ID/151.cfm


It seems like the abortion comment was an aside not worthy of inclusion in a synopsis of the speech.


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca