There is often confusion and some ambiguity regarding the laws that are written in the Criminal Code of Canada. This confusion becomes even more pronounced when researching terrorism offenses and the disturbing rise in incel-related acts of violence and misogyny. Shanifa Nasser’s article highlights the fact that the definition of terrorism is vague and the changes made to the Criminal Code in 2001 were poorly drafted, possibly leading to situations where terrorism laws were either disproportionally applied to only one group or were avoided by the prosecution outright (Nasser 2020).
If the stabbing incident in 2019 rose to the level of terrorism, it is shocking to learn the van attack that inspired it did not warrant the same charges even though it occurred only one year earlier, a full 17 years after terrorism laws were changed in Canada. This emphasizes not only a lack of understanding on how incel-related ideology was spreading within our society during this period but also that the criminal justice system itself found it difficult to navigate the poorly defined criminal code.
Even more disturbing is that the Quebec City Mosque shooting also did not trigger any terrorism charges by police or the prosecution. The perpetrator in that case was a Canadian citizen espousing violent extremism to a specific religious group, Islam, by attacking them in their place of worship. I look at the statistics of 56 of 57 terrorism charges in Canada being “Islamist-inspired extremism” and believe that the system is clearly prejudiced against Islam and has been since the 9/11 bombings in 2001.
While there may be some elements of terrorism or violent extremism behind certain criminal acts, should we be comfortable looking the other way and making concessions so the legal system would find it easier to get a conviction if they did not add terrorism charges to the file given their complexity? If the laws defining terrorism are so poorly drafted, perhaps prosecutors do not want to risk losing a case by adding a terrorism specific charge and just frame the case in another manner such as a simple violent act to ensure a conviction. It doesn’t make sense to have to play this kind of game in our criminal justice system and a clearer definition of terrorism laws need to be proposed through legislative reform to remedy this issue.
I have two questions for the author, Shanifa Nasser:
First, regarding the charges that were laid in 56 cases of Islamist inspired extremism, what were the results in those cases, how many were successful, did prosecutors find it more difficult to prove their case and did those cases become precedent setting in the laying of more charges against similar groups? The author shared limited data that left me wanting more answers as the article did not expand on why they thought there were only terrorism charges related to Islam and not Neo-Nazis, anti-authority or other Right Wing Extremist groups. Why did the author shy away from asking those questions and not dive deeper into the decisions made by the teams that prosecuted the cases and their overt abstention from using the current laws for laying terrorism charges?
Second, how much of an impact do internet laws have on the investigation of terrorism activities or the laying of charges in ideological motivated instances? The Criminal Code of Canada was updated in 2001 to include terrorism which is around the same time that the internet was becoming more mature and readily accessible to members of the public. This article could have expanded on what changes have been made to the policing of the internet with regards to hate speech or terrorism as they are often intertwined.
References:
Nasser, S. (2020, May 20). Terror charges in alleged ‘incel’-inspired stabbing could force reckoning of Canada’s terrorism laws: experts. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/incel-canada-terrorism-1.5577015
