[fblike]
Last week Canada was rocked by two terrorist attacks. On Monday, Martin Couture-Rouleau drove his car into two Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, killing one of them, and on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa and wounded a guard in the Canadian Parliament. Both men were killed in their attacks and were recent converts to Islam. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper argued that the actions of Couture-Roleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were inspired by the Islamic State, which has urged its followers to attack Western nations. Harper plans to push for legislation that would grant more powers to Canadian intelligence services and strengthen authorities in anti-terrorism operations, but his opponents argue that these security reforms could do significant damage to Canadian politics and culture. These Canadians worry that Harper will push anti-terrorism measures too far and that their country will eventually have the same intrusive surveillance systems as the United States and Great Britain.
This topic brief will concentrate on Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack on Ottawa and discuss how it was carried out, the changes that will likely be made to Canadian security in the wake of the attack, and what lessons other nations might draw from the attacks.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
The October 22 Shootings
Last Wednesday, Ottawa was placed on lockdown after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier guarding the Nation War Memorial and exchanged gunfire with security personnel inside of the Canadian Parliament. The New York Times on October 23 writes that Zehaf-Bibeau was a Canadian citizen who had recently converted to Islam. He had a criminal history, having been arrested for marijuana possession and robbery within the last decade. The New York Times notes that Zehaf-Bibeau arrived in Ottawa on October 2 and was seeking to expedite his acquisition of a passport so that he could allegedly go to Syria (The Globe & Mail on October 22 writes that Zehaf-Bibeau told others that he wanted to go to Libya to learn more about Arabic and Islam). During his time in Ottawa, Zehaf-Bibeau lived in a homeless shelter that was less than ten minutes from the National War Memorial, a site that commemorates Canadian participation in both world wars and the Korean War. The war memorial also houses Canada’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. After becoming irritated that his passport application was not being processed quickly enough, an irritated Zehaf-Bibeau on the morning of October 22 drove a recently purchased Toyota Corolla to the back of the National War Memorial, stepped out with a Winchester rifle, and opened fire on two of site’s guards, killing Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Zehaf-Bibeau then went back to his car and drove to Parliament Hill, the location of the Canadian Parliament. Unable to breach the entrance to the Center Block, which is where the House of Commons meets, with his vehicle, Zehaf-Bibeau forced a courtesy driver from his car at gunpoint and then drove to the front door of the building. It was here that he got into a gunfight with security personnel near the Parliament’s doors and he shot one guard in the leg. At that point, Kevin Vickers, the sergeant-at-arms, retrieved his pistol from a lockbox and engaged Zehaf-Bibeau, with both men reportedly exchanging fire while situated behind the large pillars in Center Block. Eventually, Vickers fatally wounded Zehaf-Bibeau and the incident ended. Extempers wishing to get the preliminary remarks about the shootings from Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner Bob Paulson can find them in The Toronto Star on October 23.
The shooting incident posed a clear and present danger to Canada’s political leadership, who were meeting in Center Block when Zehaf-Bibeau breached its doors. Members of Canada’s major parties – the Conservatives, the New Democrats, and Liberals – were caucusing before the shooting and members of parliament (MPs) barricaded the doors to their respective chambers. The Guardian on October 24 writes that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper took refuge in a cupboard that was normally used for electrical and repair equipment because his security detail was not present with him at the time of the shooting. Wayne Martson, a New Democratic politician, told The Globe & Mail on October 23 that the shooting could have been much worse if Zehaf-Bibeau knew anything about the layout of Center Block. According to Martson, Zehaf-Bibeau probably thought the large doors he was heading toward at the end of the hallway were the doors to the House of Commons instead of the doors that lead to the building’s library. It appears that Zehaf-Bibeau may have planned to open fire on the House of Commons while it was in session, but due to the quick actions of Mr. Vickers that did not take place.
The incident is traumatizing for Canadians who have long felt that their nation is different from the United States in terms of its domestic and international outlook. The BBC on October 23 writes that Canadians largely see their country as peaceful and neutral. The country’s aggressive gun laws are meant to deter the violence that was unleashed on Ottawa last week, so there are questions about how Zehaf-Bibeau acquired a firearm when his criminal history should have prohibited him from doing so. Canada has avoided a significant September 11-style terrorist attack thus far, so its citizens were proud of the fact that their government had not enacted legislation akin to the Patriot Act or installed a widespread National Security Agency-style intelligence gathering operation. However, the violence in Ottawa may change all of this.
Canada’s Changing Security Measures?
Prior to the Ottawa shootings, Canada had close calls with terrorists in the past. The BBC writes on October 23 that in 2006 police thwarted a plot by the so-called “Toronto 18,” who planned to launch a suicide attack on the House of Commons. The BBC explains that a 2012 report by the Canadian auditor-general warned about deficient security measures in Center Block and that there were significant communications problems between four security forces that operate near Parliament Hill (the RCMP, Senate Protective Service, House of Commons Security Services, and the Ottawa police). However, not much came of this report, as evidenced by the ease with which Zehaf-Bibeau entered Center Block and got so close to important political figures. In retrospect, this is alarming because there are reasons why Canada would be targeted by terrorists. First, the country has the fifteenth largest economy in the world and is a member of the G7. A significant attack there would send shock waves through the Western world and the global economy. And second, Canada has joined President Obama’s coalition against the Islamic State. Foreign Policy on October 22 writes that the Canadian House of Commons voted in favor of fighting the Islamic State on October 7 and that it has sent twenty-six special forces personnel to Iraq to train Iraqi troops. In late September, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s spokesperson, called on the group’s supporters to launch domestic attacks on Canadian soil. The Islamic State believes that if Western governments face domestic terrorist attacks as a result of their support for anti-Islamic State operations in Syria and Iraq that they will withdraw from the region. Some observers of the Ottawa shootings think that Zehaf-Bibeau may have been trying to answer Al-Adnani’s call for violence against the Canadian state.
The most immediate effect of the Ottawa attacks is that the Canadian government may enact wide sweeping security reforms. This was the response of the United States after the September 11 attacks and Great Britain followed a similar course after the London bombings of July 7, 2005. The Washington Post on October 23 writes that Harper is pressing the House of Commons for laws that would enhance police powers and strengthen their ability to arrest, monitor, and detain those suspected of terrorism. The New York Times mentioned earlier that Canadian authorities are currently monitoring ninety-three of its citizens for Islamic extremist tendencies and the Ottawa shootings may prove as the justification for giving law enforcement far-reaching powers for investigating these individuals. The Los Angeles Times on October 23 reveals that this would require modifying elements of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act of 1984. That legislation establishes the parameters of powers enjoyed by the CSIS, which is Canada’s version of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). If Harper wins this political battle, the CSIS may move to setup a larger domestic intelligence infrastructure, which could include NSA-style monitoring of Canadians phone calls and electronic communications.
Other changes might restrict civilian access to Parliament Hill. As the BBC notes in an article previously cited on October 23, Canadians can typically be found protesting or doing yoga on the Hill’s lawn. Civilians generally enjoy a large freedom of movement on the Hill, although getting into Center Block requires a special pass. In the move to secure the site it is not out of the realm of possibility that the Canadian government could eventually try to limit access to the lawn surrounding the Hill. This is already what the United States has done with some government sites such as the Capitol and the White House in the aftermath of September 11. Canadians argue that reducing access to Parliament Hill in light of the shootings would be a blow to their democratic culture. The Toronto Star on October 24 writes that locking up government buildings in light of the tragedy would give the international community the wrong idea about what Canada stands for. At the time of this brief, the Canadian government is merely investigating ways to secure the Hill, but tighter access is likely something they are considering.
All of these moves for greater security will prove controversial among Canada’s population and elements of its political class. Although Harper was quick to link the Ottawa shootings to “ISIL-inspired” violence (using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State), his opponents argue that he is overreacting. Newsweek on October 23 writes that some are arguing Zehaf-Bibeau’s problem is not that he potentially wanted to fight with the Islamic State, but that he was mentally ill. Zehaf-Bibeau reportedly had problems fitting in with organized society, was a loner, and had trouble keeping a job. The Globe and Mail article previously cited from October 22 adds that he was prone to violent outbursts and talked about the presence of Shaytan around him, an Arabic term for devils and demons. Liberal MP Wayne Easter warned shortly after the shootings, according to the BBC article previously cited from October 23, that “You can’t legislate out of fear.” This group warns that doing so would infringe on Canadian civil liberties and that the disruptions it may cause to the lives of Canadians would be a victory for terrorists worldwide. U.S. News and World Report on October 23 points out that the NSA’s monitoring of international communications is very unpopular globally, with 83% of respondents thinking it goes too far. It suggests that the Canadian government and other Western nations try to do more to empower people to report suspicious activity as that may be the best way to root out terrorism. However, that is not where the Harper government seems to be heading.
There is also the question about what new security measures may mean for Canadian Muslims, who are three percent of the national population. The Guardian on October 23 notes that Canada is currently divided between those who are encouraging multiculturalism and those who believe that tolerance has gone too far and is empowering reactionary groups. It cites a recent study that showed that 54% of Canadians have an unfavorable view of Islam. Reports that Zehaf-Bibeau was talking with radical Islamists as well as violent pronouncements by the Islamic State are unlikely to decrease such sentiment. Therefore, hostility to radical Islamists could lead to dangerous stereotypes for the rest of Canada’s Islamic population, which is not linked to radical ideology in any way. The attacks may also lead to more police surveillance of the country’s Islamic community, which could stir up a hornet’s nest of civil liberties concerns.
International Reaction to the Ottawa Shootings
What unites Canada and other Western governments, regardless of their different international and domestic politics, is their fear of “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. Unlike September 11, where nineteen hijackers worked together to pull off a devastating series of terrorist attacks, al-Qaeda and other terrorist outfits like the Islamic State have moved to a different strategy of trying to encourage single individuals or pairs of individuals to conduct terror attacks. Time on October 23 notes that reacting to these incidents is difficult for authorities because the individuals who conduct them do not always have a clear tie to a terrorist group. For example, a few weeks ago in Oklahoma, Alton Nolen beheaded a co-worker. He, like Zehaf-Bibeau, was a recent convert to Islam. Similarly, the Boston Marathon bombings by Dzhokar Tsamaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev last year were a lone wolf attack that appeared to be motivated by radical Islamic ideology, although it was not linked to a specific terrorist organization. “Lone wolf” attacks can cover other issues as well and Time provides a great list by highlighting how U.S. Pilot Andrew Joseph Stack III deliberately crashed his plane into a building in Houston, Texas in February 2010 because he was angry with the greed of the U.S. government and how Norwegian far-right extremist Anders Breivik killed seventy-seven people in Oslo three years ago.
Lone wolf attacks are not likely to create massive casualties because their operators tend to be less sophisticated, but governments need to realize how they can prevent alienated individuals, especially young men, from gravitating to radical and/or violent ideologies. Time explains that the growth of the Internet has made the recruitment of individuals to radical causes much easier and that information on conducting attacks is more widespread than ever before. Thus far, national governments throughout the world, especially European countries, have done a very poor job looking into why individuals are adopting radical tendencies. Even when it is clear why this is taking place, namely unemployment and social alienation, national governments have failed to implement policies to counteract it. For example, how should national governments handle citizens that decide to fight with radicals in Syria and Iraq and return home? The Danish city of Aarhus, according to The Washington Post on October 19, is allowing radicals to return home, while The Washington Post article previously cited from October 23 writes that France has approved legislation that would temporarily revoke the national ID cards and passports of individuals fighting with terrorist overseas. The article goes on to say that 15,000 foreigners are participating in the Islamic State’s campaigns and most of these fighters come from Europe, the United States, and Canada. The fear policymakers have, as CBS News reports on October 23, is that these fighters may return home and conduct terrorist attacks either on their own initiative or at the behest of the Islamic State. Another problem that Western governments must grapple with is how to handle radical Islamist preachers. Newsweek on October 23 writes that Zehaf-Bibeau may have been in contact with British radical cleric Anjem Choudary, who tweeted that he hoped Zehaf-Bibeau would be admitted to heaven. The British government has tried to close down organizations with links to terrorism, but it has failed to grapple with how to deal with clerics such as Choudary, who enjoy British citizenship, while not engaging in unconstitutional actions that would set awful legal precedents for the rights of other British citizens. Other European nations are facing similar problems. It is possible that the Ottawa shootings, in conjunction with the fight against the Islamic State, may prompt more proactive policies by national governments to counteract the appeal of religious and political radicalism, but no one is stepping up to the plate to sufficiently deal with this challenge in the status quo.
The United States reacted with horror to the Ottawa shootings, with President Obama telling The Huffington Post on October 23 that the incident was “outrageous.” However, Republicans were quick to jump on the issue and criticize the President’s own policies for handling “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. The Hill explains on October 23 that outgoing House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) praised Harper’s assessment of the Ottawa shootings as terrorism and contrasted that to the Defense Department labeling the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 as “workplace violence.” Republicans have argued since Fort Hood that Major Nidal Hassan’s attack on the facility, which killed thirteen people, was terrorism because Hassan was in contact with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration has refused to contradict the Defense Department’s actions, so it appears that in the midst of a midterm election that the Republicans are trying to call attention to what they feel is a damaging, politically correct way to fight the war on terrorism. It is unlikely that the Ottawa shootings will create momentum behind Republicans in the midterms, but the incident does serve to underscore that the battle against terrorism is not going away. It also hurts the Obama administration’s previous claims that al-Qaeda was “on the run” and the Islamic State was a “junior varsity”-type squad (comments that the President and his advisors probably wish he could take back).
I highly encourage extempers who have to answer questions on Canadian security to look at the issue from a global perspective. If Canada implements stronger security policies, comparisons should be made between what Canada is doing and how the U.S. and Great Britain responded to terrorist attacks on their soil. Also, one of the reasons that Canada is a target of the Islamic State is that it is engaging in an international effort to dislodge the group from Syria and Iraq. And finally, efforts to thwart the radicalization of young people is a concern for all Western governments (as well as other established regimes throughout the world). Framing the Ottawa shootings from an international perspective will allow you to pull in examples from other nations and better communicate the struggle that governments face in fighting the spread of radical Islamic, nationalist, and even communist ideology. Thus, the Ottawa shootings do not just pose a challenge to Harper’s government and to Canada’s open culture, but they pose a challenge to the very foundation of liberal societies across the globe.