IN - Curio.ca · Air India 182 Inside CSIS ... where we all have to suffer because of it.” While...

IN THIS ISSUE

Terrorism in Canada: Are We Safe? (Duration: 19:55) Amid growing concerns about terrorist attacks at home, the federal government introduced Bill C-51, new legislation to give security agencies more powers to protect Canadians. CBC's Adrienne Arsenault went inside a top-secret security operation centre to find out how much of a threat terrorism really is to Canadians and how concerned we are about it.

News in Review Study Modules

Evolving Terrorism, February 2015 Parliament Hill Shootings, December 2014 ISIS: The Making of a Terrorist Organisation,

October 2014 Homegrown Terrorism, September 2014 Terrorist Attack: Protecting Canada,

November 2001

Related CBC Programs

Air India 182 Inside CSIS Mother of Canadian Jihadi Speaks Out

Credits News in Review is produced by CBC News

Resource Guide Writer: Sean Dolan

Host: Michael Serapio

Packaging Producer: Marie-Hélène Savard

Associate Producer: Agathe Carrier

Supervising Manager: Laraine Bone

Closed Captioning News in Review programs are closed captioned. Subscribers may wish to turn on captions for hearing-impaired students, for English language learners, or for situations in which the additional on-screen print component will enhance learning.

CBC Learning authorizes the reproduction of material contained in this resource guide for educational purposes. Please identify the source.

News in Review is distributed by:

CBC Learning | Curio.ca, P.O. Box 500, Stn A, Toronto, ON, Canada M5W 1E6 | curio.ca/newsinreview

Copyright © 2015 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

News in Review – April 2015 – Teacher Resource Guide

TERRORISM IN CANADA: Are We Safe?

News in Review ∙ CBC Learning ∙ curio.ca/newsinreview 1

Note to Teachers The classroom must promote a safe

place for students to discuss sensitive

issues such as violence and death.

Prepare students for the topics that

will be discussed. Allow for individual

reflective time in addition to small

group activities where students can

safely process their thoughts and

emotions.

MINDS ON

Consider the following questions before you start reading:

1. How concerned are you about the prospect of a terrorist attack in your community?

2. Do you think Canada is a desirable target for terrorists?

3. What can Canada do to prevent significant terrorist attacks?

SETTING THE STAGE

After two lone wolf attacks in the fall of 2014, Canadians from coast to coast began wondering if they were now officially on the radar of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Certainly Canada had been mentioned in terrorist propaganda but the two attacks served to set Canadians on edge — mainly because they resulted in the deaths of two soldiers serving on home turf, with one of the attackers coming shockingly close to gunning down prominent politicians including the prime minister. In the aftermath of the incidents, the issue of averting terror threats and staying safe vaulted to top spot on the national agenda.

Background Martin Couture‐Rouleau and Michael Zehaf‐

Bibeau staged separate lone wolf attacks in

October 2014 resulting in the deaths of two

Canadian soldiers. Zehaf‐Bibeau’s attack led to

a frantic shootout in Canada’s Parliament

building. A few months earlier, Justin Bourque

gunned down five RCMP officers, killing three,

in Moncton.

Capitalizing on the issue Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative majority capitalized on this issue shortly after the attacks. In early 2015, his government introduced Bill C-51, a controversial anti-terrorism law that had a polarizing effect on the Canadian social and political landscape. On the one hand, the law enforcement community said that Bill C-51 would give them the tools they needed to effectively investigate and, in many cases, prevent terrorist attacks. On the other hands, civil rights groups said that the proposed law undermined free speech and free assembly, gave law enforcement broad surveillance and arrest powers, and invited the government to snoop into the lives of regular Canadians.

APRIL 2015 – TERRORISM IN CANADA: ARE WE SAFE?


Culture of fear The emergence of Bill C-51 came to represent the arrival of a culture of fear in Canada. Inspired not only by the lone wolf attacks but also by chilling incidents in Australia, France and Pakistan, Canadians began wondering if terrorists were preparing to stage attacks right across the country. Whether these fears were justified remains a matter of debate.

Anti‐Muslim sentiment Critics also wondered if the Harper government was fostering a climate of fear by using language that seemed to suggest that all terrorism comes from Islamic militants. Some worried that Harper’s messaging encouraged an anti-Muslim sentiment among Canadians. The Muslim community was quick to point out that Islam does not promote or condone murder. They also argued that, while lone wolf attackers Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau were labeled Islamic militants by

authorities, Justin Bourque, who killed three RCMP officers in a shooting rampage in New Brunswick was referred to as a “gunman.” Since all three incidents were inspired by twisted ideology perhaps they all should have been called terrorist attacks.

Not interested in a war of words The Harper Conservatives and the law enforcement community were quick to counter that they were not interested in a war of words. International terrorist groups have been encouraging young Canadians to leave Canada and join their cause as well as inspiring attacks on Canadian soil — and the most well-known terror networks, ISIS and al-Qaeda, use fundamentalist Islamic ideals as their guiding ideology. The unfortunate outcome of so much news focusing on radical Islamic terrorism is that too many Canadians are unable to avoid linking faithful Muslims to terrorism.

To consider

1. Why were Canadians on edge in the fall of 2014?

2. What is Bill C-51?

3. What is the relationship between the emergence of a culture of fear and the rise of anti-Muslim sentiments among some Canadians?

4. Why were the Harper Conservatives unapologetic about the language they used when describing terrorism?

Reflection 1. Should the government and the media be more careful when it comes to identifying terrorists with

the religion they practice?

2. Do you think some Canadians have failed to distinguish between faithful Muslims and radical Islamic

militants?



VIDEO REVIEW

Pre‐viewing

In the aftermath of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack in Ottawa, filmmaker Assma Galuta said, “It’s not fair to judge or stereotype a whole faith or population [based] on the actions of one individual, where we all have to suffer because of it.” While Zehaf-Bibeau claimed to be representing Islam, the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned his actions and pointed out very clearly that Zehaf-Bibeau’s decision to kill people was in no way condoned by the fundamental principles of Islam. Does Galuta have a point? Are Muslims subject to stereotyping based on the actions of a few people carrying out actions under the guise of Islam? Explain your point of view.

Viewing

1. a) What is the Canadian federal government doing to combat terrorism? What legislation are they pursuing to try to help make Canada safer?

b) What do critics think of the federal government’s approach to this issue?

2. What do Canadians think of the Harper government’s efforts to manage terrorism?

3. What role will the issue of terrorism play in the coming election?

4. Which agencies are working together at the national security joint operation centre?



5. How difficult is it for authorities to monitor high-risk terror suspects? How taxing is this surveillance on the authorities?

6. What role did Xris Katsiroubas and Ali Medlej play in the terrorist attack on the Amenas gas plant in January 2013?

7. How significant a problem is terrorism? Is it a regional or a national problem?

8. a) Why is it surprising that more Canadians are joining overseas extremist groups than Americans?

b) How does security researcher Jeff Wyers explain this trend?

9. Why does Wyers believe that Canadians need to be concerned about terrorism?

10. What does Wyers feel is missing from the CBC terrorism map? Why is this a significant “miss”?

11. Which crimes are not investigated because police need to re-align resources to fight terrorism?



12. a) What percentage of Canadians fear that an attack similar in size and scope to the attack on Parliament Hill will occur within the next five years?

b) What percentage of Canadians fear that youth will be radicalized by extremists?

13. a) How quickly are some Canadians undergoing radicalization at the behest of extremist groups?

b) What do the police think of this development?

14. According to Ali Soufan, what is the difference between al-Qaeda and ISIS?

15. What does Soufan believe Canada needs to do to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS ideology?

16. According to filmmakers Assma Galuta, Mustafa Mawla, and Maaz Khan, how are Muslims perceived by many Canadians?

17. a) How did people on the street react to the filmmakers’ “Give me a hug” request?

b) Would you have hugged the man on the street?



18. a) Why doesn’t Assma Galuta wear her hijab (headscarf) anymore?

b) Why did she lose friends after the Ottawa shootings?

Post‐viewing

Answer the question posed by Adrienne Arsenault at the end of the documentary, “How do you balance keeping people safe and keeping them compassionate?”



BILL C‐51

Minds on

Imagine a secret court hearing where Canada’s spy agency asks a judge for a warrant that would give them permission to break the law and/or breach the Charter rights of a Canadian citizen they suspect of planning a terrorist attack.

1. Would you be okay with the judge agreeing to break the law to help the spy agency with their investigation?

2. Are you okay with the spy agency asking the judge to break the law?

3. What if the investigation turns out to be based on false information and the accused is not tied to a terrorist plot? What should be done to make amends with the innocent party?

Bill C‐51: Immediately divisive In January 2015, the Harper government introduced anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51. The proposed law drew immediate praise from the law enforcement community and immediate criticism from civil rights groups. Both sides put their positions forward, leaving Canadians wondering whether Bill C-51 was a necessary next step in the battle against terrorism or a massive violation of their constitutional rights.

Arguments for Bill C‐51 According to the government, Bill C-51 gives the police and CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) more power to investigate and thwart potential terrorist attacks. It also facilitates more effective information sharing between police and Canada’s spy agency. When asked for his view on the bill, Ray Boisvert, the former CSIS chief of counter-terrorism and assistant director of intelligence, shared the following insight:

“What really jammed me up when I was in

the business was the fact that, over time,

[when] I turned to the tool kit, I was missing a

wrench, I was missing a screwdriver, I was

missing a hammer and the other thing I had

were all the reasons not to do things. So this is a

paradigm shift to where the toolbox is going to

be pretty full…”

– Ray Boisvert, Maclean’s, March 16, 2015

The bill itself allows for provisions to:

Improve information sharing regarding terrorist threats among 17 government agencies.

Improve the “no-fly” list to include people who pose a specific threat to air travel or people who have travelled abroad to take part in terrorist activities.

Amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the promotion of terrorism.

Expand the powers of CSIS to operate both inside and outside of Canada — even allowing the agency to take part in illegal activities with the approval of a judge.

Detain terrorism suspects for up to seven days.

Protect victims who come forward with information about terror threats.

All of these provisions target terrorist activities determined to be a threat to Canada’s national security.

Arguments against Bill C‐51 Those opposed to Bill C-51 have picked the bill apart and claim that Canadians need to be worried about the following:

The information sharing provisions in the bill are too vague and will allow police and CSIS to gather information using a wide net.



In other words, regular Canadians — who are in no way linked to terrorism — may be investigated if the police or CSIS deem this to be in the interests of national security.

Provisions designed to eliminate terrorist propaganda — particularly on the internet — could be used to limit the free speech (a Charter right!) of Canadians looking to discuss, in the broadest possible terms, the issue of terrorism.

Protests unrelated to terrorism could be shut down by law enforcement in the interests of national security.

CSIS would be given too much power under the act. Critics are particularly concerned with the potential for secret court hearings that would give CSIS the power to break the law or violate a person’s Charter rights with the permission of a judge.

The biggest concern critics have with Bill C-51 is the lack of accountability for law enforcement and CSIS when they use the new tools at their disposal. A column in the Toronto Star claimed:

“…the government is about to give its

controversial security and intelligence agencies

a blank cheque to operate without effective

accountability.”

– Tony Burman, Toronto Star, April 11, 2015

While CSIS is subject to some objective review, the Conservative government has rejected repeated calls to create improved oversight. Canada’s poor system of review and accountability for its spy agency is well known. In a teleconference call with Ryerson University students in March 2015, U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden told his audience

“Canadian intelligence has one of the

weakest oversight frameworks of any western

intelligence agency in the world.”

– Edward Snowden, Toronto Star, April 11, 2015

Without effect oversight, critics of Bill C-51 worry that innocent people will get pulled into CSIS and police terrorism investigations.

To consider

1. Why does Canada need Bill C-51?

2. Why do people oppose Bill C-51?

3. Where do you stand on the issue? Do you believe Canada needs a rigorous anti-terrorism framework like the one proposed in Bill C-51 or do you believe the bill goes too far?



ISLAMOPHOBIA

Minds on

Many people believe terrorism is almost exclusively carried out by Muslims, and the word “Islamophobia” has started to make its way into the mainstream. When we break down the word, it comes out looking like this:

Islam – a monotheistic religious tradition based on the revelations of Allah (or God) as revealed to

humanity by the Prophet Mohammad. The word itself means “submission’” or “surrender” and people

who practice the religion are called Muslims (people who submit to the will of Allah).

Phobia – an extreme fear of something. This kind of fear is often irrational or unreasonable.

Put the two definitions together and you get an irrational or unreasonable fear of Islam.

Is Islamophobia real or not? Simply use your knowledge of current events to answer the question.

Why do people fear Muslims?

People have been associating terrorism with radical Islamists for decades. This image took on new significance after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing U.S.-led War on Terror. The rhetoric and imagery surrounding terrorism focused on righteous soldiers combating evil mujahedeen (a Muslim term referring to one who is engaged in jihad), with Osama bin Laden as the poster boy for Muslim extremism. Suddenly, etched in the consciousness of many non-Muslims was the idea that terrorism and Islam went hand-in-hand.

Eventually, this idea began filtering into television shows and films. The Showcase hit Homeland is one such example. The show pits the CIA’s Carrie Mathison against Islamic terrorist Abu Nazir. Critics of the show say that the storyline promotes distorted ideas about Muslims. Boosters of the show say the plot is carefully crafted to show the potential reasons why terror threats surface. They also claim it

humanizes not only those fighting terrorism but also those making the decision to engage in such acts. Regardless of which perspective one favours, the show provides a less than flattering view of Islam. Homeland is just one example of how Muslims are depicted in the mainstream media.

Even the language used by the Canadian government fosters a belief that Islam is pro-terrorism. Prime Minister Harper has frequently referred to “violent jihadists” when speaking about threats to Canada while virtually ignoring other non-Muslim terrorist entities like Babar Khalsa International — a Sikh group that figures prominently on Canada’s list of “current terrorist entities.”

This type of messaging has prompted some people to use the word Islamophobia to describe the overarching fear of Islam being promoted — unwittingly or not — in Canada. Proponents of this perspective point to the tendency of



politicians and reporters to label the actions of people claiming to be Muslims as terrorism, while those who with no connection to Islam are referred to as perpetrators. Case in point:

Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau were inspired by the terrorist group ISIS but were not directly connected to the group. Both men identified themselves as Muslim and both were labeled terrorists.

Justin Bourque killed three RCMP officers in Moncton and he was labeled a gunman.

Bourque was raised in a strict Catholic family but eventually abandoned religion. He was never identified as a Catholic or an atheist in reports dealing with the specific details of his crime.

Language is a powerful instrument. It helps people to paint a mental picture in order to understand their world. However, used recklessly or thoughtlessly, language can be used to destroy relationships and build division among people.

To consider

1. What is the bias of this article? Who is the author favouring?

2. What is the point the author is trying to make?

3. Is Islamophobia a reality in Canada? Are faithful Muslims unfairly lumped in with terrorists?

IN - Curio.ca · Air India 182 Inside CSIS ... where we all have to suffer because of it.” While...

Documents

Transcript of IN - Curio.ca · Air India 182 Inside CSIS ... where we all have to suffer because of it.” While...