SuppliedWith the shooting in parliament last year, along with ISIS’ surprise success in carving out its own piece of territory in the Middle East, everyone can’t stop talking about terrorism. But if we’re going to have these conversations, I wish we were doing a much better job of talking about this subject than we are right now.
In his keynote speech for International Week, guest speaker Gwynne Dyer responded to the idea that Canada is at war with ISIS, a notion particularly prevalent in Conservative party rhetoric, by saying that we shouldn’t worry about the Islamist rebel group too much, because ISIS is a regional conflict — the conflict is about them and not about us and they’re not going to get us and that we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist.
That’s a fair point, but Dyer overlooks the issue of radicalization and domestic terrorism, which is something worth worrying about. However, the same cannot be said for our politicians who want to be seen having a stance on the issue as the federal election draws near. But while the issue has gotten their attention, the national discussion on terrorism is disappointingly monotonous.
Why is it so? First of all, you have the Conservatives who are using the issue as an opportunity to further their tough-on-crime agenda by wanting to empower our presumably powerless intelligence service. The Conservatives recently passed Bill C-51 that enhances CSIS’ powers, and allows law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists, among other provisions. The bill is more of the same from this party’s attitude towards terrorism.
The Liberals, not wanting to be left out, showed that they could stomp with the best of them by saying they’ll support the Conservatives on the matter. Meanwhile, the NDP are withholding judgement on the matter until further examination. A national conversation on terrorism in Canada is nonexistent, there are no other proposals on the table other than what the Conservatives want.
Back in 2013, our options didn’t seem like they would be so limited. In light of the Boston Bomber attack, Justin Trudeau said that we should be talking about “root causes,” of terrorism, which is a reasonable thing to talk about. But with election time upon us, it looks like he’s no longer interested in doing so. Instead of coming up with effective solutions to the problem, it’s more important to simply be seen doing something about it, as if the two were mutually exclusive and the former was less important than the latter.
To be fair to Trudeau though, his “root causes” line was largely received as a gaffe by many, another Trudeau waffle. It was a reaction that betrayed a collective disinterest in “root causes,” if they even exist. I think they do and that they go beyond supposed issues with American foreign policy.
The role of social alienation in domestic terrorism should not be ignored, especially if we were to look at the backgrounds of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the parliament hill shooter, or Farah Mohamed Shirdon and Damien Clairmont, two Calgarians who went to fight for ISIS. We can see that the things that tie these individuals together isn’t just a ideology that internalizes their violent actions, but a sense of alienation that separated the two men from the rest of Canadian society.
So could we talk about preventative solutions to terrorism as well as punitive measures? I think we should and the sooner we do so, the better.
