Homegrown terrorism

In the subsequent days, hair-raising allegations have been made: that the accused had considered storming the federal Parliament and holding the MPs hostage (now, where have I heard that before?); and even beheading Prime Minister Stephen Harper for good measure, a fate that ANR Robinson probably did not contemplate as he uttered his famous and foolhardy “Attack with full force!” (Some might point out that no-one would really notice if Harper were to be beheaded — his facial expression wouldn’t change much — but they would be wags and should not be taken seriously.)

So far, the evidence presented to the public about this “terrorist plot” includes:

— three tonnes of ammonium nitrate, a popular fertilizer that can also be used to make bombs;

— one pistol;

— some military fatigues;

— some walkie talkies

There was also mention of a “crude” cell phone detonator; and it seems the young men have been visiting fundamentalist Islamic websites, according to the RCMP, which has been monitoring their phone and Internet activities for the last couple of years (a detail that has, interestingly, drawn absolutely no comment in the media; yet when George Bush admitted to authorising citizen wiretaps, the press went wild).

In fact, apart from the firearm and perhaps the detonator, none of the above is actually against the law; nor is it illegal to play war games in a snowy field, as some of the youths apparently did last winter, and as many other non-terrorist folks increasingly do for fun. One has to hope that the Mounties have more compelling proof to offer than this. Even the three tonnes of fertilizer would be manure in the hands of a good lawyer.

As you might expect, all this drama has had Canada humming with excitement. This is not a country that believes itself to merit terrorists — unlike the US, which has virtually been begging for them. Canada perceives itself to be mild-mannered and moderate, viewed with affection by most of the world for its attempts at diplomacy, conciliation and peacekeeping.

Unlike Spain and Britain (both of which have suffered terrorist bombings on their public transit systems) Canada did not rush off to join the Americans in Iraq. Most Canadians tacitly feel that this forbearance, if nothing else, should keep Al Qaeda off their backs, at least for a while.

However, Canada is in Afghanistan as part of a “peacekeeping/reconstruction” force under the auspices of NATO, but in reality under the direction of US forces. Recently, as the Taliban refuses to curl up and die, Canadian soldiers have been engaged in much more active military activities than previously — battles, firefights, ambushes, killings (sometimes of innocent civilians).

What’s more, they’ve started suffering casualties, and coming home in body bags. That is not going down too well with much of the Canadian public, many of whom are openly questioning why Canada is in Afghanistan at all. All the more so now, as the US troops start to withdraw, leaving Canada to pick up the slack.

Recently, Prime Minister Harper - without any attempt at national debate — committed Canadian troops to two more years in Afghanistan. He insisted that it was in Canada’s national security interests to be fighting “the war on terrorism.” The premise is that if “we” don’t destroy the roots of terrorism in places like Afghanistan, we will face it at home, in the form of terrorist attacks.

And this is where I find an interesting mesh of events. Hardly has Harper made official his commitment to staying in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, then bam! - the RCMP rounds up a batch of “homegrown terrorists.” It is like show-and-tell: “See, here’s the proof that we need to be there.” Suddenly, all the nay-sayers are silent — or silenced, as the case may be. I’m not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here, but that coincidence is awfully neat. And Mr. Harper, his head still firmly on his shoulders, is beaming like a Cheshire cat.

That is one side of the story. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the RCMP would engage in such a hugely theatrical exercise (including sharpshooters on roofs, for heaven’s sake) unless there were something to it.

There are a lot of Muslims in Canada and, as recent events in Denmark demonstrated, this can be a volatile community.

Given world events, it is not inconceivable — indeed, the opposite would be surprising — that a certain percentage of the youths may have become “radicalised,” to use the current jargon.

The fact that they are “homegrown” (i.e. raised, and in some cases born, in Canada) is considered by many to be even more shocking: how could they wish to destroy the society that has been so good, so kind, so generous to them? Particularly since most of those arrested are by no means “marginalised,” but rather solidly middle-class (including one whose father, a medical doctor, hails from Trinidad!)

Personally, the “homegrown” aspect of it doesn’t surprise me in the least: the whole point of Canada’s much-vaunted multiculturalism is that it allows — in fact, encourages — everyone to adhere to his culture of origin, to nurture its idiosyncrasies both good and bad; and radical Islamism is one perfectly accepted facet of the Muslim culture. In a religion that espouses the concept of jihad, why should anyone be surprised to find jihadists?

Somehow, this doesn’t seem to have occurred to Canadian idealists. Now, reality is coming home to roost.

In several European countries, where it already has, the multiculturalism facade is swiftly crumbling, and a much more hardline official approach is starting to surface. It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens here.