omfg... can we please have a body count in western countries proposing these laws.

And can we then please put that into perspective? (e.g. compare it to traffic casualties)

And then look at the price we're willing to pay (ridiculous amounts of corrupting power without oversight that affects mostly innocent people)?

For example, let's take one of the countries with the gravest terrorist threat: Israel. Its civilian deaths from any mortar attack from Gaza (let's assume 100% terrorism) in the past 14 years? 30.

Now how many people die in traffic in Israel every year? Today about 260, in 2000 about 450, let's average that at 350.

Alright, so in 14 years, 30 civilian deaths from rocket terror attacks, and about 5.000 people dead in traffic.

Now obviously, that's 30 and 5.000 to many, respectively. And if we can prevent them, we should. But when these are the numbers for a country under what is considered some of the greatest threats of terrorism, and still its terrorism casualties pale in comparison with its traffic casualties... do we really want to pay the price by implementing ridiculous anti-terror laws in a place where it's much safer, and where thus this gap is much, much bigger, like Canada?

I mean, let's look at Canada. Does anyone know some stats on e.g. loss of life due to terror attacks in Canada for say the past 10 years? I know more than 2.000 people die in traffic every year. I can hardly find any substantial casualties in Canadian terrorism history.

I'm familiar with a few shootings where one or two people died. Regular homicide numbers (or e.g. traffic casualties) humble the stats. I remember in the 80s, 30 years ago now, a plane was bombed, not in Canada, over Irish airspace, but it had departed from Montreal so you could call it terrorism in Canada in a way. But that was by a Sikh group who wanted to target India (India Airways airplane going to India) rather than Canada, so you could also argue it was terrorism concerning India. That was horrible in any case, over 300 people died. Other than that, it's been small-time as far as I know. A few (fire) bombings without casualties, some marxist attacks, a soldier attacking members of a political party. In fact I think the worst one (after the aircraft) was an American soldier who killed 3 people.

Now of course I appreciate these casualties ought to stay insignificant. The fact terrorism barely registers in stats in most OECD countries is a great thing, and I agree we should keep it that way. But at what cost? We don't ban alcohol or driving either, when they're our biggest threats. We don't shut down factories when global warming will, at current pace, kill billions of future people. I'm completely for fighting terrorism, but I also believe the tools we employ have to be proportional. And this NSA type stuff, surveillance without oversight, detaining without a charge, none of that is proportional and it doesn't seem necessary, either. We have yet to hear of major terror attacks that such programs prevented. Yet government is all too willing to give up a great piece of modern society, a piece that makes these countries great to live in.

Anyway that's just my two cents. Apologies for what is obviously a silly comparison (traffic & terrorism casualties), and yes I appreciate terrorism is more than a casualty number. But I'm trying to show here that our legislative response is out of proportion and I hope people see that.