By Ray Rivers
October 31, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
The term ‘terrorism’ has become almost meaningless today since western leaders apply the label to almost any act of violence, particularly those committed by followers of the Islamic faith. According to dictionary.com, terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”. The PM has called the killing of our soldiers by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and Martin Couture-Rouleau terrorism.
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau running into the House of Commons with a rifle.
But is it really? Sure, these guys were two socially disaffected young men looking to do something noteworthy with their otherwise wasted lives. But no connection has been made between these criminal acts and ISIS, nor of an orchestrated ISIS terror campaign in Canada. It is unlikely that these two deadbeats believed they alone could change Canada’s foreign policy just by killing some soldiers here at home.
There is no question that Canada’s military involvement in Iraq was the spark which ignited the violent actions. But these were desperate acts by ‘lone wolves’ frustrated with the policies of their country and its leadership, and wanting to fight back somehow. Labelling these events as terrorism will not absolve the PM of his responsibility for our safety.
When he enacted the Safe Streets and Communities legislation a few years ago the PM assured us of our security. But now he is going back to the well and dredging up something as scary as permanent martial law, restricting our individual freedom and civil rights. Giving new powers to law enforcement agencies makes little sense when we consider that the perpetrators of these crimes had been in the cross-hairs of the RCMP and CSIS for some time. And wasn’t this the PM who abolished the long gun registry, thus enabling the uncontrolled proliferation and use of illegal firearms, like the one that killed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo?
Before he draws up new laws the PM should first consider his rush into the undeclared war on ISIS. Going to war is always a serious matter. For starters, there needs to be a defensible rationale for going to war. But Canada was neither attacked nor seriously threatened by ISIS (or ISIL). Offensive military action in the absence of these conditions is in contravention of the UN charter and thus illegal. So under what authority are we putting Canadians into harms’ way?
Of course ISIS is a nasty organization and its goal of establishing statehood is a concern. But there are so many other disagreeable people out there. And Canada has no ‘dog’ in this fight, unlike the US which had been an occupying power. We haven’t even suffered reporters beheaded by ISIS. And finally, the US has more than enough military equipment already there to bomb the dwindling number of ISIS targets onto oblivion. They don’t really need us.
Canadian CF 18 aircraft now in the Middle East
Still, our Gunslinging PM decided we need to hop into this fight. Without a game plan, without a plausible rationale for involvement, and without even a modest consultation with Canadians, he rushed into war. Ground forces were on their way to Iraq before the PM even made it home from the NATO meeting where this issue was a side-topic. Then, using his majority in Parliament, he rammed through a dispatch of fighter jets, against a united opposition here at home.
When a a nation goes to war it needs to secure its home-front as well as the war-front. War requires additional resources be expended, including funding to beef up national security and prevent the very kind of incidents we have just witnessed. It is clear, sadly, that the PM never anticipated any domestic blow back from his actions, nor provisioned for enhanced domestic security. As I noted in an earlier article, he probably just saw this escapade as target practice for our fly boys, in a warmer climate with real people as targets.
The official opposition party had voted against sending the fighter jets without a more detailed discussion and a game plan. The third party had argued that Canada would have been more useful providing enhanced humanitarian aid. The PM would have done well to have followed their advice.
November the 11th is Remembrance Day, and this year there will be another two soldiers to remember, and we will. But we should also not forget that this might have been avoided had we been just a little less eager to send our troops off to war – or at least done our homework before undertaking the mission. Isn’t that what Remembrance Day is supposed to be all about?
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
Background links:
Not Terrorism Terrorism or Mental illness More Spying More Security
Unknown Gun Canada’s Role in the World Middle East Interventions
Lone Gunman More Restrictive Laws Video
The reader here is asked to accept much of the writer’s assertions as fact. The article is rife with contradiction and oxymoron.
This clearly covers targeting, premeditating and killing soldiers that in the service of Canada (that’s us). Assassinations that take place in public places, clearly looking to send a message. All that from two fellows having had their passports removed and being under investigation for wanting to exit Canada to fight for the Jihadi. Not much room for doubt. Near a key military training base and at a national monument. Hmmm.
I suppose there are those that feel ISIS needs a mental health strategy and that Hitler and his mob needed a mental health strategy.
Scratch away for an “out” but it is what it is.
They are terrorists.
We can all speculate, we can all apply our own definitions of terrorism. Why not google: Criminal Code Canada definition of terrorism. Why hasn’t anyone looked this up?
Why? Because it clearly outlines that both the act in St Jean and the act in Ottawa are terrorist attacks. Oh, but only according to the criminal code.
I didn’t google “Criminal Code Canada” simply because I didn’t think of it, not because of any hidden agenda.
I am not a lawyer but, now that I have looked it up, (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-28.html) are you referring to … (b) an act or omission, … (i) that is committed … (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, or compelling … a government … to do or to refrain from doing any act, … and (ii) that intentionally … (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,…”?
If so, one needs to assume that we know the reason why the shooter did what he did.
Susan, the deployment of Canadian troops to Kandahar (the dangerous place where the fighting was) occurred in 2005 when Martin was the Prime Minister. Canadians first went to Afghanistan in 2001 when Chretien was in office. In either case, the decisions had been made before Harper became PM.
“August 2005: Canada assumes leadership of the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Canadian Armed Forces in Kabul begin to transition to Kandahar Province.” https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/timeline-involved-since-2001-canada-wraps-up-its-mission-in-afghanistan-1.1724890
Although our Forces were in harms way in Kandahar, and they were certainly prepared to defend themselves, I personally interpret that as still a peacekeeping mission. I believe the overall goal was still to stabilize and rebuild.
Can we agree to disagree about motives?
Good column, Ray. A propos to the long gun registry and its termination by the present government, all I can say is that if we had had the registry, we would now know who that rifle used by Bibeau belonged. As the previous writer stated, it definitely was not legally his, as he could never have obtained a PAL.
I still feel that we lost a bit of protection when the registry was killed by Harper.
This is just so tortured and wrong I am almost disinclined to comment because I fear my remarks will end up being another column of equal length. I will try and keep it simple and short.
1. No connection between ISIS and these two murderers in Ottawa you say. Then why would you claim in the next breath they were motivated by Canada deploying fighter jets to Iraq to fight ISIS?
2. You might well be right that they were not motivated by ISIS and that is a scary thought, because it means that they were motivated by Islam itself. Some of us maintain that it is Islam that is the problem, not simply different organizations’ interpretations of it. If Islam is the problem then we may find ourselves with so many more “lone wolves” that they will be able to form a wolf pack. And we will never see them coming. There are plenty of “disaffected youth” as you describe them. They don’t all pick up a gun or drive a car and deliberately target soldiers and Parliament unless they are motivated by something else. I wonder what that could be, he asked rhetorically?
3. The “defensible rationale” is to show some support for our ally who requested our help, the United States, not to mention Britain, France, Denmark and Australia. Some wars are moral and some are not. Beating down ISIS would appear to be one of the former.
4. Didn’t consult with the Canadian people? I thought that is what Parliament is for. The government does not need Parliamentary approval to commit forces, but it went to Parliament anyway. The fact that you didn’t like the result is immaterial. Polls have shown that about 66% m of Canadians support a limited military effort against ISIS. That is what the government has given them.
5, Of course, if the gun registry had still been in place he would not have access to a gun. When are you ever going to get past this illogical canard?
It was Liberal leader, Paul Martin, who sent troops to Kandahar, not Harper.
Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister from Nov. 4, 1993 to Dec 11 2003. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada)
I agree with your thoughts on labeling every violent act ‘terrorism’. If you were to do a keyword search on ‘terrorism’ prior to 2001, the word would rarely come up in Western media. Do the search today, it shows up multiple times in almost every newspaper / news site. (Even the Burlington Gazette!)
Points of clarification re long gun registry:
1. People with illegal firearms would not have used the registry. Only law abiding citizens registered their firearms. The registry would not have deterred a person who wanted an illegal firearm from acquiring such a firearm.
2. The firearm used in the murder of Cpl. Cirillo may have been acquired illegally (I know nothing of its source), but it is NOT an illegal firearm.
3. Every person in Canada who owns a legal firearm and / or wishes to buy ammunition requires a PAL (Possession and Acquisition License). Even though there is no longer a gun registry, the person is ‘tagged’ as a gun owner in an RCMP database. This license is renewed every five years. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm
As I see it, all these fighter jets dropping bombs will solve nothing and a lot of citizens will be killed, maimed and made homeless.
ISIL is a terrorist group. They’re often groups of individuals dispersed in small groups throughout various countries. You need to have “boots on the ground” to find them and deal with them. I see this move of governments telling people they are only going to send over planes as just the beginning. We will need more than airplanes to combat ISIL.
In September 2001 after the the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Canada, under Chrétien sent in more than 100 Canadian Forces personnel into Afghanistan to help stabilize the country and to help Afghanistan rebuild. That’s the old Canada.
Then, in 2006, under Harper, the Canadian troops were redeployed to Kandahar province. There were 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan and 1,200 comprised the combat battle group. This is the new Canada. We are no longer peacekeepers.
If you attack someone, they will retaliate.
IMO, the Ottawa shooter was a jihadist wanna be. He was not a member of an organized group who planned this attack. He could be called a terrorist but, it’s not what most of us think of when we refer to a person as a terrorist. And this was certainly not what we would normally think of as a “terrorist attack”.
There are many definitions of the word terrorist. One definition is “a person who terrorizes or frightens others”. That definition would include a husband who stalks his former wife/girlfriend.
For all I know, this could have been another case of suicide by cop.