Terrorism and Canada
The attacks in France that saw the beheading of the teacher Samuel Paty in Paris and a knife attack on a church in Nice that left three dead show that the threat of jihadism remains a potent force that requires a vigorous response.
Given the urgency of the problem, French President Emmanuel Macron has been unwavering in his pledge to combat Islamism. Sadly, he has been undermined by the self-flagellation and political correctness that has been the popular immediate reaction to Islamic terror. Unfortunately, engaging in these sorts of responses has been the government of Canada, a country that should be in complete solidarity with France.
Asked if he thought that people should be allowed to use their freedom of expression to “make fun of religion and Muslim leaders,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that freedom of expression should always be defended but has its limits and shouldn’t be used to “needlessly and arbitrarily hurt someone we share this planet and society with.” Indeed, contrary to the United States, Canada’s has a “reasonable limits” clause in its Constitution that applies to the right to free speech, as is seen in its hate speech laws. But such limits can be established through the democratic process and fairly adjudicated in a court of law. This response, however, is problematic as it indulges the victim-blaming narrative by conferring legitimacy upon the grievance of those who murdered French citizens as punishment for blasphemy against Islam — — a crime that doesn’t exist in France’s secular society.
In response to the Nice attack, the Prime Minister claimed that the terrorists’ actions do not “define” Islam and should not be seen as representative of Muslims the world over. Of course, this is correct, as someone using these attacks as pretext for an attack or discrimination towards all Muslims is clearly wrong. Like any other religious community, it is a diverse one with many different sects and views on the role of religion in their lives. The Islamists are but one subset of it and shouldn’t obscure the community’s positive qualities. But on the other extreme, the violent, radical elements shouldn’t be obscured in order to avoid offending people at any cost. For what has been faulty in the government’s response to terrorism has been its refusal to identify any connection whatsoever between Islamic ideologies and the violence committed in their name.
Last year, it published a revised Public Safety report that omitted any mention of the Sunni and Shia ideologies that animate groups like ISIS or Hezbollah. The then Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said that the intent behind this was to “not impugn an entire community or an entire religion that is not responsible for terrorist behaviour.” Certain sections of that community, however, can be responsible and have a plausible rationale for it, given Islam’s engrossing history and its vast array of interpretations.
To understand a threat and then address it requires an honest assessment of its sources. The politically correct approach argues that the barbarism of ISIS and Hezbollah can be explained by broad generalizing phrases such as “marginalization”, “insanity,” or “the cycle of poverty.” Denying any religious element has led the government and others in the Western world to grasp at straws. For example, commenting on the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Trudeau opined that it happened because of someone feeling “completely excluded” and fretted over “marginalizing” those “who already feel like enemies of society.”
Phil Gurski, a former CSIS analyst and expert on Islamic terrorism, says that one reason this view prevails is because of the modern impulse to provide a rational explanation for violent behaviour and negate the power of ideology.
“People can’t understand why someone who is perfectly intelligent can go bomb people, murder them at prayer, or drive a van into them and not have it be mental illness,” he said in a recent interview.
“Most people we looked at had opportunities, were university grads or post-secondary. They weren’t born on the wrong side of the tracks or came from a broken family. They seem like an average Canadian. People just can’t understand how someone can get sucked in and committed to ideology.”
Compared to Europe, Canada faces a more modest terrorist threat, but it hasn’t been immune to the process of Islamic radicalization. And this often occurs among those who couldn’t convincingly be described as being beleaguered in any meaningful way. In his research on terrorism focusing on those Canadians who’ve supported or joined Islamist groups, scholar Alex Wilner has found that unlike their European counterparts, most Canadian Islamists have not had a criminal background prior to being radicalized and have acquired some sort of post-secondary education.
A case he highlights is that of John Maguire, a former University of Ottawa student who joined ISIS and fled to Syria in late 2012. According to former colleagues, Maguire became a zealous convert while watching lectures by radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who infamously promoted violent jihad. He also took to the radicalism of Awso Peshdary, a notorious “recruiter” for ISIS who was charged in February 2015 with terrorism-related offences.
From this milieu also comes the cases of Carlos and Ashton Larmond, twin brothers who were part of a terrorist circle in Ottawa influenced by Maguire and Peshdary and jailed in 2016 for attempting to leave Canada to fight for ISIS. Carlos, now living in a halfway house under close watch, allegedly attempted to radicalize other inmates during his time in prison.
And though he was given release, there is no evidence that Carlos still doesn’t pose a danger to society, given his ideological commitment.
“In the case of Larmond,” Gurski said, “the Parole Board said, categorically, that he’s not ready to go out.”
“He’d shown no signs of moving away from the ideology. He’s as much a danger on the outside as the day they put him in.”
Radical ideas do continue to galvanize parts of the Islamic community and this needs to be approached without the fear that only empowers extremists. In the wake of the attacks in France, it’s past time to move beyond politically correct presumptions about Islamist extremism. Our security and values are too important, and the continued appeasement of a radical sect has not done much to protect either.
