Talk:October Crisis

RCMP staged terrorist acts
I removed this sentence: "It must be however noted that the RCMP staged several fake terrorist acts in order to bolster fear of the FLQ movement. Where is the proof for this? I have not been able to find any. The article states that over 200 terrorist acts were carried out by the FLQ. Considering this (and in the absence of proof) I don't think it is correct to say the RCMP would need to stage terrorist acts to bolster fear of the FLQ. I also removed this sentence: "It must be taken care not to overblow the size of a movement which conducted no more than a few isolated operations." Is this sentence relevant? How is 200 terrorist acts "a few isolated operations." Joseph haley 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The RCMP burned down a barn that belonged to Paul Rose's mother in 1972. They also produced a fake FLQ manifesto in 1971, in order to prove that the terrorist movement was "still alive". These are well-documented facts; you can read the wiki article about Scandals surrounding the RCMP. Please note that these actions were taken AFTER the October Crisis, at a time when the FLQ wasn't active anymore, so it is understandable that the RCMP would want to "perpetuate" the climate of fear, knowing that the separatist movement was moving towards the (non-violent) political arena at the time. -- Hugo Dufort 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are the sources for the "200 violent crimes" committed by the FLQ? I don't see any reference in this section. Just wondering; any undocumented information is subject to caution. -- Hugo Dufort 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (I suggest for anyone claiming the RCMP was not involved in bombings and terrorist acts and that the FLQ commited 200 violent acts without knowing what they are talking about to read Investigation Commisson transcripts, Keable commission, McDonald report, to get information on John Starnes one of the Director of Security Services of the RCMP, read newspapers from the late 70s, to learn about Operation Essai, Operation Ham, Carole Devault, Robert Samson, Claude Morin)

I suggest a link to RCMP terrorist actions and False Flag operations to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandals_surrounding_the_RCMP

Heres information I found related to RCMP activities;

Keable Commission and McDonald Report found The Canadian secret services and RCMP have conducted operations against the sovergnty movement from 1969 to 1978

December 19, 1969 Trudeau and Robertson ask RCMP Commisioner Higget to deal with seperatists the same way they previously tackled communists. They give the RCMP a blank check (dont tell us, just do it).

RCMP creates Section G to fight against seperatism

1970 after FLQ kidnaps Cross and Laporte, Canadian secret services create the 'Strategic Operation Center' to counter FLQ, the SOC learns that the FLQ has more support from the population than anticipated

RCMP spreads reports of 50 FLQ cells massively armed while Quebec provincial police signals 4 Cells

Operation Essai the name of the military operation that was to operate under Wars Measures act.

Nearly 500 arrest are made without any court orders of people believe to be potential FLQ members.

Carole Devault (24 yrs old) (Code named agent SAT 945171) is used to infiltrate FLQ and also used as an Agen Provocateur to foster terrorism (including planning of bulglary before Cross is recovered and placing bomb after FLQ arrest and Cross liberated).

In December 1970(shortly after crisis), C. Devault actually creates the first of several phoney FLQ cells which in january 1971 places a fire bomb at Brink's. The Police proclaims there is a FLQ renewal (helps intensify anti-seperatism operation). Devault is not the only agent engaging in False Flag operations to be pinned on the FLQ but she is the most documented.

19 February agent Devault uses dynamite bomb behind a post office.

She then creates 6 new (flase) cells that make (false) FLQ communiqués.

Devault then creates the Jalbert cell which attempts extortion by threatening to explode an airplane in midflight

At the end of 1971, Devault organizes a new hold up.

Shortly after Vallières quits FLQ, (alledging there's nearly no real members left in the FLQ, its like preaching to police agents).

Then another communique is released stating that power can only be obtained at the end of a gun. This communique was arranged by Cobb, in charge of the RCMP, later to be revealed that it was one of several RCMP fabricated communiquées. The Federal government denies 'knowing' about it.

1973 of the agents provocateurs in fabricated FLQ cells, Devault specifically is no longer an Agent Provocateur but a regular spy (infiltration, information).

1972-73 Operation Ham, 44 RCMP agents organize the theft of the 60 000 name list of Parti Quebecois members. Prepared in late 1972 the operation takes place in january 1973. RCMP receives assistance from CIA and form Chicago operative for computer data tapes transfer assistance. (as aknowledged by Gilbert Albert, RCMP special section in the 70s). This operation was illegal since the PQ was an officially recognized political party.

1974 Bomb explosion in Westmount orchestrated by an RCMP. A RCMP agent, Security Service Corporal Robert Samson is wounded in the operation and is arrest by police. His identity is revealed which triggers Royal Commissions into RCMP activity.

1992 Claude Morin prominent member of the PQ aknowledges that he was(back then) a double agent working for the RCMP

It could also be that yet, there is no proof around the fact that the RCMP did anything, but also that the government wanted to keep it all covered up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawtliam (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

--Rick: Feb 9 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.38.219.253 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Meaning of War Measures Act
As a non-Canadian reader of the article, it would help me to know what specific protections were removed by the invocation of the Act, i.e., what normally would happen that did not. Hope this comment is helpful. --Gary D 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not know what are the exact provisions of the war measures act but as a result The Army had the right to arrest citizens, jail them without hearings and make mass roundup of potential FLQ members. Hope this helps

Basically the entire charter of rights and freedoms was suspended, including the right to habeas corpus. --Conman56 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC) The War Measures Act had very little to do with the Army. The Army was called out under the National Defence Act in "aid of the civil power", as formally requisitioned by Quebec's Soliciter General, as it has (before and after) on various other occasions where the police needed more manpower. Soldiers were given the powers of "peace officers", but virtually no arrests were made. They served in a security role providing guards for VIPs and buildings as well as cordons for search and arrest operations - but the police ran the show and made any arrests.24.201.116.161 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Serious Attack
I changed "most serious terrorist attack in Canadian history" to "most serious terrorist attack on Canadian soil". The Air India bombing caused far more loss of life, although I supposed it could be argued that it didn't cause as much of a stir as the October Crisis. --LeeHunter 13:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Number of people arrested
Regarging the number of persons arrested, this CSN (a union) report regarding the recent C-36 bill gives it as 497, 62 being charged with anything and about 20 being actualy found guilty.:

http://www.csn.qc.ca/Memoires/TerrorismeC36FrSet.html (This reference is from a Trade union)

Removed incorrect statements on the War Measures Act inserted on 20:58, 29 July 2005 Marc paquin that stated:


 * Under the War Measures Act, 497 residents of Quebec who were considered supporters or sympathizers of the FLQ as well as others dubbed radicals (union leaders, teachers, artists, etc...), were subsequently arrested and held according to the law for questioning, without charge, trial or contact with the outside world for up to a 3 weeks in the case of 343 of them. 62 were eventualy charged with various offences although only 20 were found guilty.

I replaced it with information from the McGill University website  of senior Quebec cabinet Minister during the Crisis time, and McGill University Law Professor, William Tetley. Marc Allaire 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to start a fight over this but why would you assume a federal minister would be more right then a union ?


 * I also notice that you have removed other part in such a way as to minimised the fact that the majority of people arrested were not only unrelated to the FLQ but also not political activists.


 * Finaly, do you have a source for the Lévesque article in the Journal de Montréal you mention ?--Marc pasquin 01:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * William Tetley was a major player on the October Crisis, he is part of those who requested that the "loi des mesures de guerre" be applied. His opinion is what it is, an opinion. The fact remains, that a lot of people arrested had little to do with FLQ and more to do with socialism and unions.


 * i also have a problem with this part of the article "Once the War Measures Act was in place, arrangements were made for all detainees to see legal counsel. In addition, the Quebec Ombudsman, Louis Marceau, was instructed to hear complaints of detainees, and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested". Even according to the documentary by Robin Spy (NFB), most people were arrested for up to three months without access to any counseling and released without even knowing why they were arrested. Money compensation didn't occur until years later, and not for everyone. Sir John Falstaff (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Abbreviate the timeline and move it to the bottom; incoporate removed parts as prose. Also "sectionize" this—it rambles. Marskell 17:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to this from Gary D: -- As a non-Canadian reader of the article, it would help me to know what specific protections were removed by the invocation of the Act, i.e., what normally would happen that did not. Hope this comment is helpful. --Gary D 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) --

The war measure act was used to arrest people who disagreed with Trudeau, the monarchist leader of the canadian monarchy. They sent the army at super time to arrest Singer and Union leader. Without any charge or even hint of any wrong doing, this protection in a normal society is call habeas corpus, basicaly you need to have a reason to arrest somebody. They didn't. How did they know what people to sent to jail ? They stole PQ membership list. Again stealing the membership list name is a criminal offense and yet they did it. So basicaly they had and still have the list of every person who vote against them.

It is only fair to mention that canadian monarchist also have their own terrorist, the Caporal Denis Lortie, who shot dead 3 people while attempting to kill all the elected deputy of the Lévesque party.

--- Yes, but one must keep in mind that both the premier of quebec and the mayor of montreal asked the federal government for help, and that the war measures act was one of the few options aviable to the federal government.

Peer Review for CCOTW
See Talk:CCOTW. Zhatt  21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Number of people arrested, part 2
Since this the contribution of the week, could someone else review the revert that Marc Allaire had made to my contribution about this subject. He never answered back and other people decision would be appreciated (even if it goes against what I wrote)--Marc pasquin 18:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

October Crisis in the media?
What this article fails to mention is the lack the explanation of the October Crisis' impact on media, including the films made about the crisis, or set during the time period. --TcDohl 15:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

October 16th
I changed the wording around a bit for the October 16th bullet point, no one actually asked for the War Measures Act to be implemented, and the sourcing was wrong on one of the quotes. It should be alright now, although feel free to change it, I put in the source. Endos 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Link between FLQ & Parti Québécois
Even if the PQ is for Quebec independance, that doesn't makes them linked in anyway with FLQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlimar (talk • contribs)

Death of Pierre Laporte
Maybe it would be a good idea to give the version that Laporte actually cutted his wrists by trying to escape and died through blood lost, rather than strangulation... There always been 2 version of his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlimar (talk • contribs)

Black October Link
I just signed up so won't edit the live page yet, don't want to overstep my bounds. :)

The (internal) media link to the CBC documentary "Black October" actually links to a page about a rap album by rapper Sadat X being released in October, 2006... was there a page or has it disappeared?

Accents?
Perhaps someone might like to go through the page and either put accents on letters where appropriate, or remove them all entirely (I support the former). The way it is, though, e.g., sometimes Québec, sometimes Quebec, sometimes Montréal, sometimes Montreal, is both common in this article and unduly inconsistent.

I do not know French, though, so I'm no authority on what accents go where. 24.141.76.6 05:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was only one accent out of place that I saw (now fixed). The normal practice (here and elsewhere) is to use the English names Quebec and Montreal rather than the French names Québec and Montréal. However, when the words are part of a longer proper name that has no official English version (like Sûreté du Québec or Journal de Montréal), the accents stay. Indefatigable 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a citation missing
Merely stating that Canadians in and out of Quebec overwhelmingly favored the instituting of the War Measures Act doesn't make that true. I hope that those citations and various others are added to corroborate the statements made in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.30.180 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I tried to address this concern by hunting for some citations. They aren't very authoritative (various web pages), but there were plenty of them, they all mention high poll numbers and one of them cites a specific poll, so I think they are legit. The negative public response to Tommy Douglas' stand on the issue (i.e. voting against the War Measures Act) also implies pretty much the same -- his vote against it clearly wasn't a popular choice at the time. To make sure the citation fixes were balanced (e.g., not leaving the contrary views uncited and perhaps looking more questionable even though they might be right), I found and fixed the ones for Tommy Douglas and Robert Stanfield, and I also found quotes from 1970s socialist publications that listed some of the intellectuals and political activists that were arrested at the time, and which those writers thought were unjust arrests. It would be better to find a more impartial and modern source for that last one.140.184.73.172 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC

William Tetley's The October Crisis, 1970: An Insider's View notes a gallup poll on page 103, the poll was printed on December 12th 1970. The poll states that 89% of English Canada supported the WMA, and 86% of French Canada supported the WMA.

Assessment
I have assessed this as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, although it does need more in-line citations and referencing. I have assessed this as high importance, as I feel that this topic plays a vital role in understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted vandalism on this page, didn't undestand a reason for such nonsense.--Pashator 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously biased
This whole article is the standard ROC version of October 70. Has anyone from Quebec actually reviewed this? Not even a single word about the Keable Commission? Come on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.160.106 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LiberationCellSurrender.jpg
Image:LiberationCellSurrender.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OctoberCrisis-WTetleyBookcover.jpg
Image:OctoberCrisis-WTetleyBookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider disambiguation page
I was automatically redirected to this page from a search on "Black October". It should be considered to create a disambiguation page for the term "Black October" because this is a common term for the events of the Gas War in Bolivia/El Alto in 2003 that left twelve dead and scores wounded. Black October (Octobre Negro) is a landmark event in Bolivian history. See entry on Bolivian gas conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havardh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. I added the 2000 film Black October about the October crisis, and a mention of the October 2008 financial crisis (also sometimes called Black October) for good measure. --Saforrest (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing RCMP Break In
I am removing this sentence from the article: "Following that crisis, under Prime Minister Trudeau's directions, this led to a series of scandals surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, particularly to the RCMP's illegal break-in to steal the Parti Québécois's member list in its offices in 1973." Look at the first three words of the sentence: "Following that crisis". The article is about the October crisis, not about RCMP 'break ins' which were said to occur, by the admission of whoever added this to the article, in 1973; well after the "October Crisis". I would suggest if you think this is important to put into Wikipedia that you create a stand alone article for that incident as it is not related to the October crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.9.107 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More balanced lead
I just made an attempt to expand and rephrase to lead to more accurately reflect the implications of the events, and to hopefully add some balance to the lead. It isn't perfect, but I hope it is a starting/continuing point for further improvement. user:j   (aka justen)   12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate message
At the bottom of the first section there is a message that says: HEY ITS SCOTT, IM SO IN LOVE WITH YOU AND I HOPE YOU NO IT, I JUST WITH I DIDNT SEE YOU AT THAT PARTY WITH THAT PIPE IN UR HAND.....<3 Which is not relevant to the subject, should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.221.23 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Army searching and arresting
The article currently asserts in the section October Crisis, 5th paragraph, that the military was conducting searches and making arrests along with the police. This contradicts other parts of the article which assert that the military was mobilized only to guard sensitive areas, and that only the police made arrests.

I strongly suspect that passage in question is in error, but since it is cited, I am reluctant to edit without checking. Does anyone still have access to the source to confirm it actually says the Canadian Forces had authority to arrest civilians and actually did so?

Citation: Tetley, William. "The Importance of the Quebec "October Crisis, 1970" to the "Quiet Revolution" in the Province of Quebec (and the rest of Canada (ROC) as well)". McGill University. Retrieved 24 January 2014. Indefatigable (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Little cause to complain?
"the majority of those [detainees] interviewed after had little cause to complain"

That's an opinion. They might not have complained, of course, and that would be fair reporting. Some might even have "commented on the courteous nature of the interrogations and searches", and to say so would be fair reporting, if quantified. But to say that they had "little cause to complain" is an interpretation; one that does not appear to have been shared by the provincial government since "the Quebec Ombudsman, Louis Marceau, was instructed to hear complaints of detainees, and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested."

In fact, William Tetley states in his book "October Crisis 1970: An Insider's View" that "[d]etainee complaints filed with Marceau increased from 95 on 20 January 1971 to 171 on 12 March and 238 on 6 July 1971. Of those 238 complaints, Marceau found 103 justified and meriting compensation."

See also the July 6, 1971, entry in http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.93.165 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on October Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213235102/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hl8BdnQR?url=http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/crisis/ to https://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/crisis/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213235102/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430094607/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/docs/october/letters.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/docs/october/letters.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Part of the Cold War?
Was this really a part of the Cold War or is that an error? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cold War = Canada vs USSR -- no that was not a factor & not mentioned in article. I droppd that claim & kept "Quebec sovereignty movement" Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte
Laporte was the deputy premier and should be refer to as such.

The fact that the media refer to him as Labour minister is irrelevant. An encyclopedia is not meant to do the media's bidding.

As far as I can tell his Labour portfolio had nothing to do with his kidnapping and the fact that he was the second ranking member of the government makes it all the more significant.

In fact I read somewhere that Laporte was Acting Premier when he was kidnapped as Bourassa was away on holiday. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

However if one insist on referring him as Labour Minister then I have no problem with "Deputy Premier and Labour Minister."

It is either that or just Deputy Premier. I will not accept a third option on this.122.106.83.10 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I also like to point out that unlike the Deputy Premier the title of Labour Minister no longer exists. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Laporte's accidental death?
In the timeline: "Controversially, police reports not released to the public until 2010 state that Pierre Laporte was accidentally killed during a struggle." Looking at the link, it appears to be a biographer's claims of information held by the Quebec government. It appears that the biographer also had claims about the ability of the Quebec government to prevent it, something that does not appear to be endorsed by this page. While the disputed circumstances of Pierre Laporte's death may be worth documentation in a section, I don't think sufficient evidence has been presented (eg: the actual police reports) to incorporate it into the main timeline. Also, no articles were posted to support the word "Controversially" or to confirm that there were "police reports ... released to the public". Unfortunately, after a quick Google search, I was not able to find English articles on the matter and my French isn't good enough to skim the Google summaries to figure out relevance. --Forgottenlord (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in October Crisis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of October Crisis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Pearson rebukes De Gaulle": From Vive le Québec libre:  From Charles de Gaulle:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
The current infobox used is Template:Infobox military conflict. Would anyone object if I switched to Template:Infobox civil conflict, which I believe is more appropriate? BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)