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 Couture-Rouleau drove his car into two uni-

formed members of the Canadian Armed Forces, killing Warrant Ocer

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 oences 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 ocers.

FALSE SECURITY

2

Legislating in Fearful and Politicized Times

Canadians and 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 dierence.”

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 political reaction to terrorist attacks in January  in

Paris and Copenhagen. ose attacks targeted the Jewish community and

those perceived to have insulted Islam, most famously the French satirical

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 turn 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 still held without incident and with , competitors.

is al-Shabaab threat 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 party fundraising video.

In March , Jahanzeb Malik, a permanent resident, was arrested

and held in immigration detention pending his subsequent deportation to

Pakistan. He had allegedly told an undercover ocer 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 ocer that it

was legitimate to attack taxpaying Canadians 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 raised the fear level. As a result, Bill

C- was debated and enacted in a fearful and politicalized environment.

Public opinion polls suggested that over  percent of Canadians supported

Bill C- in February . is support declined as Canadians debated the

bill, with a slim majority of those who closely followed the debate actually

opposing the bill. But Canadians were scared and they wanted to be safe.