Canada: Who, Please, Are We Helping?

At this fraught time in the history of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism, it is important that Canadian public authorities — especially the police and security services — not inadvertently confer legitimacy and credibility on organizations and individuals whose histories and associations raise legitimate questions about their ideological background, links and agendas.

One way in which authorities unintentionally assist in building the credibility of undeserving groups and individuals is by sponsoring and attending meetings and events involving such persons and organizations. It is therefore important for those in positions of authority to acquit themselves properly of their responsibility to meet due diligence obligations, when it comes to screening those involved in such events.

  • John Boy
  • Jim Horne

    “The first duty of the government is to afford protection to its citizens.”

    Not according to Amarnath Amarasingam and Craig Forcese. Nope, these two guys appear to be advising Canadian Public Authorities to coddle would be terrorists.

    By portraying a would be terrorist, Aaron Driver as a victim and setting out his victimology to in effect take priority over the safety of other citizens, cab driver Terry Duffield, in particular, one has to ask the question of public policy advisors, just how far down the rabbit hole have Canadian Public Authorities gone?

    Radicalization and violence in Canada: The Aaron Driver case

    “… a key question is whether the peace bond had the effect of uprooting the young man from the only community he knew and provoking a move to violence. His online community was a vibrant one. No matter how disagreeable its views, it provided Driver with a deep emotional and social anchor, severed entirely by the peace bond.” Amarnath Amarasingam and Craig Forcese, Policy Options – Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP)

  • Jim Horne

    Parliament, it’s your duty to protect the public

    One of the answers to closing the gap is expanding Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act to permit Security and Intelligence Agencies working with the RCMP to take swift and decisive pre-emptive action to protect Canadians. This should include the use of lethal force. Decisions of this nature could be overseen and signed-off by a parliamentary body.

    Until Canada’s Security Agencies working with the RCMP are empowered to use lethal force to eliminate potential threats and not just immediate threats to public safety, citizens will continue to be fodder in terrorist attacks. Canada’s Security Agencies and the RCMP need a full set of Threat Reduction Tools if they hope to safeguard Canadian citizens. Half measures will not do.

  • Canadians don’t care about terrorism abroad and won’t care about it when a major attack happens on their soil.

    • dukestreet

      Canada’s Security Agencies working with the RCMP are not in affording protection to Canadians. They are more interested in taking swift and decisive pre-emptive action to protect the terrorists. I have seen this behaviour myself.

      • And given that we can’t defend ourselves nor speak out, we are screwed.