Dessert as terrorism -

Dessert as terrorism


Liberal Gerry Byrne makes the case.

“When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization,” the member from Newfoundland and Labrador said in an interview from Ottawa with radio station VOCM in St. John’s, N.L.

“I am calling on the Government of Canada to actually investigate whether or not this organization, PETA, is acting as a terrorist organization under the test that exists under Canadian law.”


Dessert as terrorism

  1. Maybe it's just me but "makes the case" tends to imply that the "case" is convincing.

    To call this terrorism is just plain stupid.

  2. interesting idea – after all a pie tasting like shaving cream this time – maybe next time acid like the taliban do – what would the chattering classes call that.

  3. Uh.. Byrne.. you do realize that part of terrorism is to inspire terror.

    I mean, unless you're allergic to tofu or something, if this inspires terror, you should get out more.

  4. Tiramisuism, not terrorism.

  5. I criticize Harper for being too heavy-handed with his caucus and not letting them open their mouths, etc. I'm now thinking Ignatieff, by contrast, is letting things go a little too far the other way…

  6. I totally agree with Mr. Byrne.

    PETA and others like them have to realize that violence is not a protest tool. And throwing a pie or throwing a punch – what's the difference?

    • In fact, what is the difference between a pie or gun or a nuclear strike?

      (the answer is: one of degree of harm).

    • How is it that the throwing of punches is so rarely treated as an act of terrorism?

  7. Something clearly covered under the criminal code?

  8. Here here. While it might sound ridiculous, I think assaulting government ministers is something we should all object to. It is not something that has a place in our political discourse.

    • ok its objectionable.

      I got a pie in the face as part of a charity fund raiser years ago. I knew it was coming but it still shocked me and brought out an immediate violent urge (which I did not act on). It is violence and has no place in our politics.

      but we already got laws

      it is funny (and dangerous) to define this as terrorism.

    • You mean to say “hear, hear”. For my part, while describing it as “assaulting a minister” seems crafted to raise emotional hackles, it’s also simply a pie in the face. Criminal, yes, but serious, no. A summary charge, no doubt. Terrorism? Well, perhaps that only serves to highlight the pointlessness of trying to define “terrorism” rather than relying upon well-defined criminal terms in order to address criminal acts, be they of a pastry or explosive nature.

      • "There, there …"might be more appropriate to comfort someone who got pie on her face.

      • To the extent that PETA condones the use of violence and other criminal acts to pursue a political agenda, I think it could be classified as terrorism. Whether the same kind of response as for other terrorist organization is appropriate is another matter. I wish people would call a spade a spade. These aren’t pranks. This is an organization that condones and perpetrates violence against Canadians to draw attention to their political agenda.

        • I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but this example seems to me rather like calling a spade a "shovel of death and destruction".

        • Provide some examples. I'm not convinced on the basis of this example. What specifically has PETA counselled that is a violent act along the lines of carbombs and kidnappings and flying airplanes into buildings and firing rockets indiscriminately into villages? Also, does that mean we end up with different response agencies for differently regarded terrorist organizations? Changes to the Criminal Code? New legislation? More funding for RCMP, CSIS, municipal police forces, etc? All because of a pie to the face, as criminal, stupid, and objectionable as that was?

  9. Thank you.

  10. Punches usually hurt more, and generally don't taste like shaving cream.

  11. Tiramisu in the face is a waste of good cake.

  12. There are about a million ways to respond to a pie in the face that do not require stretching our terrorism laws until they lose all meaning. Gail Shea could sue. She could seek charges under the criminal code for assault. She could ridicule PETA. She could admit they have a case and argue, sternly, that this is not the way to press that case. The reason it "might sound ridiculous" to seek to designate PETA as a terrorist organization because one of its members tossed a pie is because it is ridiculous.

  13. Klein pie-thrower gets jail time

    As part of the story (pre 9 /11 mind you)

    In 2000, while visiting P.E.I., then-prime minister Jean Chrétien was hit in the face with a pie by a protester. The man was sentenced to 30 days in jail, but a higher court said a conditional discharge would have been more appropriate and reduced his sentence to the eight days already served.

  14. A pie for a pie and a fruit for a fruit.

    • Makes everyone tasteless.

  15. Thank you Paul.

    I guess the seal hunt issue really gets to a Newfoundlander. So now its:

    If stop clubbing seals … the terrorist have won.

  16. I'm assuming he means 'eco-terrorism', since this involves PETA.

    'Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."[3] The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism 200 million dollars in property damage from 2003 and 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism'

    • The FBI probably knows the amount because they likely funded half of it like they did during COINTELPRO.

  17. This protestor could benefit from spending a few days in jail and a ban on furture visits to Canada but, as Inkless correctly points out, this is no time to expand the scope of our terroism laws. Misuse of terrorism laws makes them even harder to use when needed.

  18. Agreed, this is pretty silly… but I do commend Mr Byrne at least for his chivalry and non-partisan leap to the defence of a Conservative cabmin.

  19. Bryne's comments are certainly over-the-top, but still it is nice to see some cross-party support.

  20. Not really. In the event the libs get back in you can be pretty sure Gerry wont get to do anything more onerous then look after the petty cash…the libs , not ours.

  21. Unless I'm mistaken, the pie-thrower in this instance has already been charged with assault. Also, (again, unless I'm mistaken) Shea doesn't have to "seek charges under the criminal code for assault" as I think the police charge people with crimes, they don't necessarily wait for the victim to "request" that a perpetrator be charged with a crime. Of course, if Shea is not interested in the matter being pursued, then it's somewhat unlikely the woman would be prosecuted, as it's often somewhat fruitless to prosecute someone for assault if the victim isn't interested in the person being prosecuted, but as for charges I think that's almost entirely within the hands of police, and I know I read yesterday that the woman in question has been charged with assault.

    As for looking in to whether PETA should be labeled as a terrorist organization, based on a pie-throwing incident, that's got to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've heard in a long time. If PETA could be deemed a terrorist organization over this, then the term "terrorist organization" would lose all meaning. It's the equivalent of Godwin's law. If everyone can be compared to Hitler, then comparisons to Hitler (or the Nazis) lose all meaning. I can just see Osama now. "Sure, they call me a terrorist, but those people labeled PETA terrorists because they threw some desserts at people. I'm just being oppressed by an out of control security-obsessed West just like that nice lifeguard lady from the TV".

  22. So Byrne wants the Government of Canada to direct the actions of the police !?!

    Wake up Gerry … Chretien hasn't been PM for over six years.

    We've got a new guy now, Harper, who understands separation of powers, a little bit better than da little guy.

    • The government does direct the actions of the police, through the drafting and revision of the Criminal Code, as well as the dictum from the Minister of Public Safety.

  23. One of these days some big gnarled finger is going to poke right through the pie crust and do some serious damage. You could lose an eye.

    Then what: PM`s driving around in Pol-Mobiles, Body-scanners at all political meetings, Pastry sniffing dogs………

  24. Could we just declare PETA a ninny organization and move on?

  25. Can we look forward to an amendment to one of the several crime…er,punishment… bills
    that the dastardly Senate is blocking ?

    • I thought adding dastardly amendments was what the Senate was being accused of.

      • They should have been adding custardly amendments.

        • better than tofu me thinks

  26. Hah, Harper and separation of powers are a oxy moron. I'm afraid you in your Calgary tower are either being obviously oblivious or evily satirical. If there's anyone in Canadian history who has acted less to enshrine a separation of powers it ain't your so-called leader.

    • That's "Calgay" tower to you.

  27. I still think labeling PETA as a terrorist organization is completely silly, to say the least, but somewhat in the Member's defense, I believe his argument was that PETA should be investigated to determine if their collective activities constitute the activities of a "terrorist organization". He's not exactly saying that throwing a pie in someone's face is an act of terrorism, but rather that this latest assault has him wanting the government to look in to PETA's activities as a whole, to see whether they constitute a terrorist organization.

    Still incredibly silly, if not harmful, imho, but I can imagine that a good number of NL MPs, of all parties, probably viewed PETA as a potential "terrorist organization" long before the latest pie-throwing incident, and there may well be activities that PETA has engaged in out on the ice that one would be less likely to scoff at, were one to see said activities being labeled as "terrorist" activities.

  28. Pie throwing is anti-Piemitic.

    • Soy throwing is anti-Soymitic.

  29. The pertinent phrase here is "in an interview…with VOCM." You don't go on VOCM if you're planning to be thoughtful about NL's household gods: the fishery, the weather, resource revenues, equalization or Danny Williams. You go on VOCM to compete with every other NL politician to demagogue these issues around the block. It's a bit like the op-ed page of Le Devoir or the speaker's podium at the Petroleum Club. Local orthodoxies are there to be paid obeisance, not questioned.