Introduction
Author | Craig Forcese; Kent Roach |
Pages | 1-19 |
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
I. THE ATTACKS AND THEIR AFTERMATH
The October 2014 Attacks
On October , Martin C outure-Rouleau drove his car into two uni-
formed members of the Canadian Armed Forces, killing Warrant Ocer
Patrice Vincent. Authorities had seized Couture-Rouleau’s passport that
summer, in order to stop the recent convert to Islam from leaving Canada
to ght with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Nevertheless, he had
not been arrested or charged under new terrorism oences that Canada en-
acted in to penalize those who attempted to leave Canada to participate
in foreign terrorist groups. Nor did authorities restrict his liberties with an
anti-terror peace bond (a form of restraining order).
Two days later, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau — whose passport application had
also been delayed within the government for reasons that remain unclear —
murdered Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a soldier who was standing ceremonial
guard at the National War Memorial. Zehaf-Bibeau red three shots from
his long gun into the back of the defenseless Corporal Cirillo. Incredibly,
and despite intelligence issued a few days before about increased threats of
terrorism, Zehaf-Bibeau was then able to enter the Centre Block of the Par-
liament building where the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and
some members of Parliament were in caucus meetings. He wounded the
unarmed parliamentary guard who had tried to disarm him before he was
killed by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers and RCMP ocers.
FALSE SECURITY
2
Legislating in Fearful and Politicized Times
Canadians a nd their political representatives were united in their shock and
grief at these attacks. But only for a time. Prime Minister Harper introduced
Bill C- in an election-style rally on January . He defended the legis-
lation on the basis that “violent jihadism is not a human right. It is an act of
war, and our government’s new legislation fully understands the dierence.”
e bill made the most far-reaching changes to Canadian security laws since
/. Bill C- was introduced not only in response to the October at-
tacks, but also as a politica l reaction to terrorist attacks in Janua ry in
Paris and Copenhagen. ose attacks targeted the Jewish community and
those perceived to have insulted Islam, most famously the French satirica l
newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
e cold Canadian winter of was then beset by secu rity fears. Police
charged two people with conspiracy to commit murder on Valentine’s Day
and alleged that t hey had planned to shoot people in a Halifax mall. Mini ster
of Justice MacKay stated that this was not an act of terrorism because of the
absence of a “cultural” element, a peculiar t urn of phrase given the absence
of such a concept in the law. For some, it was a coded phrase suggesting a
double standard for Islamic-related terrorism, but the arrests aroused more
fear. A week later, al-Shabaab, the al-Qaida-linked Somali terrorist group,
issued threats to shopping malls, including the West Edmonton Mall. is
led to thirty-ve teams withdrawing from a cheerleading competition, one
that was fortunately sti ll held without incident and with , competitors.
is al-Shabaab th reat was cited by government politicians as an indication
of the need to enact Bill C- in a hurry and was reproduced in part in a
Conservative part y fundraising video.
In March , Jahanzeb Mali k, a permanent resident, was arrested
and held in immigration detention pending his subsequent deportation to
Pakistan. He had al legedly told an undercover ocer of plans to bomb the
American consulate in Toronto and that he had trained in Libya and was
interested in joining ISIS. He reportedly told the undercover ocer that it
was legitimate to attack ta xpaying Canadia ns because of Canada’s role in
bombing ISIS. Other developments included a mysterious tunnel near a To-
ronto Pan Am Games venue that turned out to be a “man cave” and a white
powder sent to federal ministers from Quebec that turned out to be innocu-
ous. Nevertheless, these incidents also ra ised the fear level. As a resu lt, Bill
C- was debated and enacted in a fea rful and politica lized environment.
Public opinion polls suggested that over percent of Canadians supported
Bill C- in Februar y . is support declined as Canadians debated the
bill, with a slim majority of those who closely followed the debate actual ly
opposing the bill. But Canadians were scared a nd they wanted to be safe.
To continue reading
Request your trial