We were all very pleased to read Daniel Gallant's take on Bill C-51 which the government is currently pushing through Parliament while limiting debate. We were especially interested in observations such as this:
Today, Gallant is a Prince George-based social worker, helping others make their exit from extremist circles.
And while he may be one of the faces of the new federally-funded campaign, he is also raising concerns about what he sees as the government's over-emphasis on Islamic extremism in the rationale for its new anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51, while largely giving other forms of extremism a pass.
ARC has significant problems with the proposed legislation of a constitutional nature (concerns also shared by
at least one former CSIS officer). We are also concerned with the message of the legislation. For many in the governing party, as well as those who support the passage of Bill C-51, the extremists that are to be targeted are those who have been radicalized by Islamic extremism without consideration of others who have been radicalized by other ideologies. A common refrain we've read on online message boards and comment sections include variations of this statement:
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
This is dangerous because it stigmatizes an entire group based on the actions of a very small minority; there are according to the last census for which we have numbers more than one million Muslims and at 3.2% of the population comprised the largest religious minority in Canada. One would be hard pressed to legitimately suggest that most of these people, Canadian citizens who have by and large integrated into the fabric of Canadian society, are any more dangerous than a Judeo-Christian Canadian.
The claim is also patently untrue.
Back in 2011, one of our writers compiled what is likely
the most comprehensive list of racist extremist acts in Canada during the past 45 years. While not minimizing the violence perpetrated by those who may be regarded as being motivated by Islamic extremism, when compared to the violence committed by neo-Nazis in Canada during the same time period, those acts committed by Islamic extremists in this country appear to be very small by comparison. And yet, when the government talks about the need for Bill C-51, they don't have people like Kyle McKee or members of Blood & Honour in mind. But it seems really difficult for the political class to recognize racist extremists as a legitimate threat.
So with this in mind, let's engage in a little thought experiment.
What if we were to tell you, our dear readers, that we know of a man (we'll call him X for now) who had contact with an individual (we'll call him Z) who murdered nearly 80 individuals by means of bomb and firearms? The action Z undertook was ideologically motivated. Now X was not only in contact with Z, but celebrated Z's rampage in writing and appeared to advocate for more of the same sort of action.
How many people in this country would be surprised if this were X?
This here is Chiheb Esseghaier,
one of two men currently on trial for a harebrained scheme to derail a passenger train. We at ARC don't argue with the arrest or the trial, though we do note that while the government claims that cases such as this prove the need for the passage of Bill C-51 to provide law enforcement with more tools to target men like Esseghaier, he and Raed Jaser were investigated and ultimately arrested using the existing tools which sort of call into question the need for Bill C-51 in the first place.
In any case, could anyone argue that had Esseghaier made statements in support of mass murder, that alone would be cause to investigate him for any possible links to extremism?
But the thing is, though Esseghaier may very well be a very bad guy (the trial is ongoing) who may support extremist views similar to those we outlined in our little scenario, it isn't he whom we are referring to.
In our scenario, Z is this fella....
.... and X is our buddy Sebastian Ronin:
