Ter-ror-ism, noun

THE BROCK PRESS/Brittany Brooks

THE BROCK PRESS/Brittany Brooks

Have you ever tried saying a word so often in repetition that it no longer sounds like anything? After only a few dozen iterations, it quickly loses meaning and becomes an arbitrary sequence of noises, drawing more attention to what your mouth is doing than what you’re actually saying.

The same goes with words that you rely on, whether they be in writing or speech. After writing enough essays, you can recognize that you use the phrase “in conclusion” or “what’s more” a bit too often. You likely know somebody that uses the word “literally” too often, to the point that it’s interchangeable, at least in their use, with the inherently different “figuratively”.

In both cases, these compulsions are crutches; the words and phrases are used over and over because they achieve the desired effect, or because they are easy ways to connect thoughts or to punctuate points. The term “terrorism” has become one such crutch. Given that a federal election is coming up quickly, the pending C-51 anti-terrorism bill, and due to the recent attacks in Ottawa last year, terrorism is going to be talked about more and more. While it will likely be used as a crutch to appeal to those citizens most susceptible to fear-mongering, its use may also be selective.

Not unlike “creepy” and “awesome”, terrorism has the possibility of being used improperly, to describe something that is similar, while not exactly deserving of the label. However, the recently foiled Valentine’s Day shooting plot in Halifax has somehow managed to avoid the ever-ubiquitous label.

The intended attack would have likely caused multiple deaths at the Halifax Shopping Centre on Feb. 14, but was averted, ending in the arrests of two conspirators, both of whom were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. According to CBC News, at least one of the suspects was involved in an online blogging group. Given that one of the arrested was a resident of Illinois and the other Halifax, it’s likely they corresponded online to commit the act. Commanding officer in the Nova Scotia RCMP, Brian Brennan, commented the arrested “had some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens”. Considering that their plan was to attack a shopping centre on the most commercially romantic holiday of the year, it wouldn’t be too far a leap to think that the attack was inspired by social differences, especially given Brennan’s description of the group as “murderous misfits”. However, both Brennan and the Halifax Regional Police Chief Jean Michel Blais were unwilling to label the planned attack as an act of terrorism, as it lacked “political” or “ethnic” motivation.

Concerning the pending anti-terrorism bill, Justice Minister Peter McKay enforced Brennan and Blais’ definition of terrorism last weekend, saying that “the attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated – therefore, not linked to terrorism”. He responded to inquiries on the earlier statement by telling reporters to look up the definition of terrorism. Unfortunately, there is no concrete and agreed definition for the term. If you were to look it up, you would find entries ranging in difference from the semantic to the fundamental. While many involve a “political” motivation, some merely require a shared belief as the motivation for acts of violence on innocent, non-militant bystanders as qualification for the term. Therefore, implying that only those of a shared ethnic or cultural belief (like a religion, or a race) instead of merely perceived social injustice (like the foiled conspirators of the Valentine’s Day attack) takes on a possible jingoistic or even racist undertone.

In the coming months, the definition of terrorism will likely gain a more official status here in Canada. Support for one party or the other, for or against the C-51 bill will be a part of that process. Given how far-reaching the effects of such a discussion will be, it’s clear that Canadians of every background, ethnically, economically and otherwise, should be a part of the process.

Pin It

One thought on “Ter-ror-ism, noun

  1. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has identified the threat as “violent extremists motivated by radical Islamic views, the legislation would also expand the ability of government agencies to infiltrate environmental groups on the suspicion that they are promoting civil disobedience or other criminal acts to oppose resource projects.”

    As has been publicly stated, namely that: “The legislation identifies ‘activity that undermines the security of Canada’, as anything that interferes with the economic or financial stability of Canada or with the country’s critical infrastructure, though it excludes lawful protest or dissent.” We should not overlook the importance of “lawful” in that statement … and again in this: Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the Bill targets “any activity that undermines the security of Canada (which) does not include lawful advocacy, protests, dissent and artistic expression.”

    The fact that the anti-petroleum movement is foreign-funded is cause for great concern. We must ask ourselves which off-shore interests have a vested interest in ensuring that America and Canada do not become wholly energy supply independent to the point of having no reliance on Arab oil and gas? I think the answer is obvious – Arab interests. Therefore, it is not a long bow or stretch of the imagination then to question why Islamic militants are joining the anti-petroleum movement in Western nations, given that Arab nations are staring at economical decline as a result of the decreasing reliance on Arab oil.

    Islam openly proclaims its intention to Islamise the globe and to globalise Islam and it is already doing so by destabilising the economies of the West through compelling it to expend billions of revenue on anti-terrorism at home, on terrorist expansion through war and national security funding. Although, fossil fuels and perpetual growth are certainly a threat to the survival of our planet, so too is radical Islam a threat to the survival of our Western culture. Allowing Islamic militants to dictate our economic policy is hardly a prudent course. I believe the C-51 Bill is designed to necessarily avert that and is therefore imperative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>