Do terrorists need special treatment?
In January, 2015, Shawn Rehn murdered an RCMP constable and injured his partner.
In October, 2014, Michael Zehaff-Bibeau murdered an army corporal and injured a Parliament Hill security guard.
Also in October, 2014, Martin Couture-Rouleau murdered an army Warrant Officer and injured another soldier.
In August, 2013, Justin Bourque murdered three RCMP officers and injured two others.
In March, 2005, James Roszko murdered four RCMP officers.
Zehaff-Bibeau and Couture-Rouleau were instantly vilified as terrorists, the other murderers were not. What’s the difference? All were horrific crimes. What makes two of these crimes deserve different treatment from the others?
Later this week, the Government of Canada will introduce more anti-terror legislation. I don't know what will be in the proposed legislation. They'll talk about Michael Zehaff-Bibeau and how his actions with a stolen museum piece (a Winchester Model 94) spread terror, and how more terror was spread by Martin Couture-Rouleau, whose weapon of choice was an automobile. I doubt there will be any mention of Justin Bourque and how he shut down all of Moncton with his arsenal of a Norinco M305 (legally purchased with a valid FAC), a Mossberg 500 shotgun and a crossbow.