Stephen Harper won’t call non-jihadist terrorism what it is.

With Canada’s federal election campaign in full stride, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is courting the electorate over a pair of issues: security/public safety and the economy. On both fronts, his rhetoric is misleading. This article will examine his security-related posturing.

Canada’s top politician has emphasized the threat of ISIS/Islamic State, and more broadly, “jihadist terrorism”. He accuses his principal rivals — New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair, and Liberal Party boss Justin Trudeau — of failing to show sufficient resolve in the face of a threat to Canadians’ safety.

“Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are so wrapped up in some twisted form of political correctness that they won’t even call jihadist terrorism what it is,” Harper declared at a recent town hall meeting in Ontario. Following a pair of violent attacks by Canadian converts to Islam that claimed the lives of two Canadian soldiers in October 2014, Harper has hammered that nail continually.

“If you cannot even bring yourself to call jihadist terrorism what it is, then you cannot be trusted to confront it, and you cannot be trusted to keep Canadians safe from it.”

Harper’s statements gloss over the absence of universal consensus on the definition of “terrorism” (let alone “jihadist terrorism”), and the important historical and contemporary reasons why no such consensus exists. His assertions of certainty are baseless; he might as well lambaste Mulcair and Trudeau for failing to acknowledge that the earth is flat.

Ironically, Harper has also exposed himself to a critique more incisive than that which he levels at his opponents.

The Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 83.01, the definition of “terrorist activity” encompasses the following:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
• (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
• (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
• (ii) that intentionally
• (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
• (B) endangers a person’s life,
• (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public…

The October 2014 crimes of Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau both appear to meet this test. Harper’s preferred adjective, “jihadist”, presumably refers to their religion, and a perception that ISIS or some other militant Islamist organization may have inspired them to carry out their crimes.

On the other hand, both perpetrators were born and raised in Canada, and both were “lone wolf” assailants. There is no credible evidence that either had operational connections to any entity that the Canadian government deems a “terrorist organization”. The “ISIS/Qaeda-inspired” theory is tenuous at best. Judging by Zehaf-Bibeau’s cell phone manifesto, one could reasonably infer that he was inspired by Canadian foreign policy.

The October 2014 attacks are just two among several recent outrages in Canada and abroad that technically comport with the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”. But Harper has deployed the “t” word selectively over the course of his premiership — reserving it predominantly, if not exclusively, for espied “jihadist” perpetrators.

Non-jihadist terrorism on Harper’s watch

In 2012, a masked gunman named Richard Henry Bain attempted to infiltrate the post-election celebration of Quebec premier-elect Pauline Marois in Montreal. Followers of Canadian news may recall that event security whisked Marois away from the podium midway through her victory address.

Bain killed one audio-visual technician, and seriously injured another. Police apprehended him after he set fire to the Métropolis building, wherein numerous Parti Quebecois supporters and journalists had gathered for Marois’ speech. As officers escorted him away from the scene, Bain proclaimed, in French, “The Anglos are rising up!” As an Anglophone resident of Quebec, Bain apparently held deep grievances toward the Quebec sovereigntist movement in general, and the PQ in particular.

Harper stated that he was “shocked and saddened” by the shooting, but at no point did the prime minister characterize Bain’s gambit as “terrorism”.

Disgruntled military veteran Glen Gieschen conspired to blow up a Veterans’ Affairs office in Calgary in January of 2014 — a plot that, had it succeeded, might have resembled the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Gieschen’s conspiracy failed after his wife alerted police to the possibility that he was suicidal; they found him asleep alongside a sizable cache of firearms and explosives.

Harper has issued no public statement condemning Gieschen’s terrorist plot.

In the summer of 2014, an anti-government extremist named Justin Bourque opened fire on officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Moncton, New Brunswick, killing four. At his trial, it emerged that Bourque was enraged at the federal government and intended to spark a revolution.

Although Bourque eventually received the lengthiest criminal sentence in Canadian history, Harper again neglected to call this clear-cut instance of “terrorism” what it was.

Earlier this year, a pair of deranged youngsters plotted to open fire on civilians in a Halifax, Nova Scotia shopping mall on Valentine’s Day. Police foiled their designs with the help of an anonymous tipster. Their social media posts offer ample evidence that the suspects were Nazi sympathizers, and were infatuated with mass killers, including Columbine shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

An intellectually honest and morally consistent individual might wonder how those young people became “radicalized”. But intellectual honesty and moral consistency have never been hallmarks of either Harper in particular, or the U.S.-led War on Terror in general.

A similar response to events abroad

The discrepancy in Harper’s response to “jihadist” versus non-jihadist terrorism outside his country’s borders is even more conspicuous.

He voiced solidarity with Bostonians after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, with Parisians after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and with Danes in the wake of a relatively small-scale shooting in Copenhagen in February, quickly labeling those incidents “act(s) of terror” or “terrorism”.

On the other hand, although he offered condolences for the 2011 rampage of Norwegian fascist Anders Behring Breivik, Harper (unlike statesmen and officials in Norway and U.S. President Obama) did not characterize that incident as a terrorist attack. And when white supremacist gunman Dylann Roof shot nine African American congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina church in June, the proverbial cat seemed to have caught the Canadian prime minister’s tongue.

This is not to suggest that Mulcair and Trudeau have a sterling record on the terrorism file. Indeed, both men apparently subscribe to the fallacy that the criteria for “terrorism” are clear and consistent. However, Harper has distinguished himself by doubling down on the jingoistic “toughest on terror” card in this election cycle.

Why does it matter?

There are many reasons why the real-world distinction between “terrorism” and non-terrorism is enormously consequential.

Consider that the Harper government has passed legislation (bill C-24) that enables officials to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual nationals who have been “convicted of terrorism”. Because the Criminal Code standard of “terrorist activity” has little relationship to what officials deem “terrorism” in practice (or even in courts of law), this legislation confers on the government a largely arbitrary power to strip citizenship from dual nationals.

It also opens the door to an unjustifiable disparity in criminal penalties. In the future, we might see a dual national and presumptive “terrorist” like Omar Khadr stripped of his Canadian citizenship, while notorious Canadian serial killers are entitled to retain theirs.

The Harper regime also has a habit of exploiting the term “terrorism” to manufacture consent for policies of questionable benefit (and great cost) to Canadians — like anti-freedom bill C-51, and the Canadian military’s current misadventure in the Middle East. In order to sell Canadians on these policies, Harper must portray “jihadist terrorism” as an exceptionally acute threat to their safety.

Trust issues

Harper certainly has electoral and ideological motives for applying the label of “terrorism” so selectively. I leave it to my readers to surmise those motives.

In any event, studies suggest that the threat of white supremacist, anti-government, and right-wing extremism is comparable in scale and severity to the menace of “jihadist terrorism” in North America.

This begs a few questions.

Why won’t Harper call non-jihadist terrorism what it is? Is he too wrapped up in some twisted form of political correctness? Is he fearful that such a stand might alienate potential supporters?

Given that the prime minister can’t bring himself to call textbook acts of non-jihadist terrorism what they are, can he be trusted to confront terrorism? Can he be trusted to keep Canadians safe from it?