Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say

Good discussion among experts on some of the challenges in defining terrorism (beyond the obvious cases):

“The problem of defining terrorism has been a thorny one from the get-go,” said terrorism expert John Thompson, vice president of Strategic Capital and Intelligence Group.

“Terrorism overlaps with so many other activities. When does a violent protest become terrorism? When does some sort of psychotic episode where someone is acting out become terrorism? It’s a very hazy border.”

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public’s security or compelling a person, government or organization to do or refrain from doing an act.

Thompson said this definition was intentionally general and open to interpretation, but the key element is a political or ideological motivation.

“Terrorists can attack literally anything and they have, but the motivation has to be more political than anything else. Terrorism has always got an ideology involved in it,” he said.

Two suspects [Halifax shopping mall planned attack] have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Had they been accused of terrorism, the range of offences and potential punishment would have been much greater, said Thompson.

“Some of our terrorism legislation is high-powered and we don’t want it to be used for every single case,” he said.

Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say – The Globe and Mail.

If new Australian citizenship laws were to mirror UK powers, what would change? | Australia news | The Guardian

Foreshadowing the Australian government’s plans to follow British (and Canadian) revocation policy:

This [revocation] power has three key limitations: first, it can only be used where the serious offence was committed before they became an Australian citizen. Second, it only applies to citizens by conferral, adoption or descent – which means it doesn’t apply to citizens who are citizens of Australia by birth. And third, the revocation can usually only occur for dual citizens, because the minister is not permitted to allow a person to be stateless.

These laws are already set to be expanded slightly by a bill introduced by the previous immigration minister, Scott Morrison, that would make it easier for the minister to revoke citizenship where fraud has been used to obtain it.

In an opinion piece for the Australian on Monday, Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic foreshadowed areas that may provide some indication of what the prime minister will put forward next week.

He wrote that “Those who persist in associating themselves with terrorist causes must be identified and wherever possible ejected from the state.” He said that “many would argue” that “even Australian-born citizens forfeit their right to be considered Australian.” And he referred to the British example of allowing citizenship to be temporarily suspended – even for non-dual citizens – which could circumvent the statelessness issue.

These statements all go directly to overcoming the three limitations to the revocation powers, and suggest the government is considering adopting a system more like the powers available in Britain.

If new citizenship laws were to mirror UK powers, what would change? | Australia news | The Guardian.

Disregard for Diversity in Selection of Judges – New Canadian Media – NCM

Valid concerns:

Several legal groups are calling on Ottawa for a more accountable process for judicial appointments saying there is an appalling lack of diversity and visible minority judges in Canada.

The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the South Asian Bar Association, and the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers have joined forces arguing the appointments show a “disregard for diversity” and are calling for change in the selection process.

Last week, the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers sent a letter to Justice Minister Peter MacKay asking if the government plans to start collecting information about the makeup of judges.

The letter was sent in response to media reports that found the department of justice doesn’t have any “readily available” information about the diversity of federal judicial appointments from the past 20 years.

It means the government can’t say how many women, visible minorities, French-speakers or aboriginals have been named as federal judges since 1993.

In its letter, the FACL – which represents some 700 members in Ontario, and is affiliated with the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, which has approximately 40,000 members –  asks MacKay three questions:

  1. Does the government keep statistics on the number of judicial applicants who it says do not “self-identify”?
  2. How long will it take the government to gather this information?
  3. Does the government intend to gather and produce this information so that we may better understand where exactly we stand on judicial diversity in Canada?

The letter also says MacKay has twice declined a meeting with the federation’s president to discuss diversity. Another letter shows MacKay also turned down a meeting last summer with the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, Global News reported.

Lawyer Anna Wong writing in Law Times said a recent round of judicial appointments by Justice Minister Peter MacKay has put the issue of judicial diversity squarely back in the spotlight.

“The latest appointments follow a trend of predominantly white male appointments that reflect neither the diversity of the population served nor that of the legal profession.

Disregard for Diversity in Selection of Judges – New Canadian Media – NCM.

No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It – Steven Fish

More detail from the Steven Fish study on violence and Islam (see earlier New Atheists are wrong about Islam. Here’s how data proves it – Salon.com):

And a cursory look at the data shows that from 1994-2008, I found that 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings occurred worldwide and that Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent, of these incidents, accounting for 70 percent of all deaths.

I exclude from the data all terrorist incidents that occurred in Iraq after the American invasion, and I consider attacks on occupying military forces anywhere to be guerilla resistance, not terrorism. I also use a restrictive definition of “Islamist” and classify attacks by Chechen separatists as ethnonational rather than Islamist terrorism. In other words, even when we define both “terrorism” and “Islamist” restrictively, thereby limiting the number of incidents and casualties that can be blamed on Islamists, Islamists come out as the prime culprits.

So, all that would seem to suggest Islam is more violent, right?

Not so. Rewind fifty or a hundred years and it was communists, anarchists, fascists, and others who thought than any means justified their glorious ends. Even now, Islamists are by no means the sole perpetrators. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Colombia’s “narcoterrorists” blow up civilians and have nothing to do with Islam. In the United States, law enforcement considers the “sovereign citizens movement” to be a greater threat than Islamist terrorists. However, Islamists do commit most of the terrorism globally these days.

Look more closely, though, and you’ll see they don’t attack in the West very often. Of the 125 attacks committed by Islamists that I studied, 77—62 percent—of them were committed in predominantly Muslim countries, and their victims were overwhelmingly other Muslims. Another 40 attacks took place in just three countries—Israel, India, and the Philippines. Only four of the 125 attacks happened in the Western Hemisphere or Europe. They were ghastly and dramatic, just as they were intended to be. But they were, and still are, rare.

… Things get even more interesting when we look at other ways that people kill each other besides terrorism. In one of the most influential works of social science penned in the late 20th century, Samuel Huntington claimed that Muslim societies are “bloody.” He asserted that they experience more major intrastate political violence, meaning civil wars, rebellions, interethnic clashes, and sustained government repression. These types of violence claim far more lives than do terrorist acts, which take the form of one-off events.

Huntington provided no support for his claim, and I tested it. The world experienced 235 episodes of intrastate violence that claimed over one thousand lives between 1946 and 2007. A total of just over 21 million people lost their lives in these conflicts.

Huntington’s thesis about Muslim bloodiness fares badly when we look at the evidence. In predominantly Muslim countries, on average, 0.65 percent of the population perished in major episodes of intrastate violence. In non-Muslim countries, 0.72 percent died in such episodes on average. In the postwar period, Muslim countries suffered slightly less severely from loss of life in major episodes of political violence than non-Muslim countries.

Analyzing the data is tricky. In order to have confidence in the results, it’s necessary to crunch the numbers in a multitude of ways. But any way you slice the data Huntington’s thesis falls flat. Muslim societies are not more prone to mass political violence than others.

What about violent crime? Here Muslims are way behind the rest of us—and in a good way. Homicide rates in Muslim-majority countries average about two murders per annum per 100,000 people. In non-Muslim countries, the average rate is about 8 per 100,000. Murder rates fluctuate from year to year, but they are consistently low in Muslim societies. The homicide rate in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is 1 per 100,000—one-fifth the rate of the world’s largest Christian country, the United States. Christian countries live with murder rates that are unknown in the Muslim world. Brazilians and Mexicans are used to murder rates in the 15-25 range; the rate in Venezuela tops 50. Turks, Egyptians, Iranians, and Malaysians live with rates in the 2-4 range. In a good year, Christian South Africa lives with a murder rate of around 30. In a bad year, the rate in Muslim Senegal is one-tenth of that. Anyone who is skeptical of these numbers is invited to walk through minaret-dotted Dakar and steeple-studded Johannesburg at night and compare their experiences in the two cities. For that matter, have a stroll after dark in the low-income areas of Istanbul or Ankara. Then do so in Philadelphia or Oakland.

No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It – The Daily Beast.

 

What Transformed Copenhagen Gunman From Petty Thug to Lethal Jihadi? | TIME

One of the more interesting and in-depth pieces on the Copenhagen killer, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein:

Increasingly, however, the distinction between common criminals and radicals is becoming meaningless, at least in Denmark. “Here, there’s crossover between criminal gangs and extremism,” says terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher at the Swedish National Defence College. “In other places you have a division between petty criminals and people [who join extremist groups] to give their life meaning. Here you have individuals who can switch between the two worlds, people who even use extremism as an exit strategy from gangs. Gang experience makes them more serious in extremist circles. They have access to weapons, they know how police work, they’re hardened, they have the skillset.”

The number of extremists has risen in Denmark in the past few years to around 200, according to the Danish intelligence service PET. The conflict in Syria has increased their ranks; officials say that 110 Danes have gone to Syria or Iraq as foreign fighters, though the real numbers are likely higher. Kaldet til Islam, an organization with ties to Wahabism and the British radical group Sharia4UK has been attracting a number of returning Danish foreign fighters, and posted a video in which several cartoonists, including Vilks, were depicted as targets.

There is no evidence that El-Hussein was influenced by Kaldet til Islam, and PET has admitted it had only passing awareness of him. That means his time in prison will come under even greater scrutiny as a potential source of his radicalization. Certainly it played a pivotal role for Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly, two of the perpetrators of the attacks in Paris at the office of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket. Both men were known to have been in contact during their time in Europe’s largest prison with convicted jihadi Djamel Beghal.

Investigators in Denmark are looking into whether El-Hussein had the same kind of experience. “The Danish prison service is vastly different from the French and Belgian, which are serious incubators of terrorism,” says Ranstorp. “In Denmark, they are aware of this issue, and they document the cases of people who get involved, and try to address it. But of course the big issue is who did he come in contact with, what was his behavior there like?”

One measure of the seriousness with which Denmark takes the issue of extremism is the nearly 60.9 million kroner ($9.1 million) deradicalization plan recently agreed to by the government. The plan includes an ‘exit center’ for foreign fighters returning from Syria and Iraq, as well as prevention programs for susceptible youth. That the plan is viewed as potentially effective was evident in Kaldet til Islam’s response. On Feb 4, it was denounced as “a hostile desire to separate Muslims from their Islam” on the group’s Facebook page.

Whether that kind of program would have prevented the Copenhagen attacks is impossible to predict. And El-Hussein’s actions, however they were inspired, suggest a keen determination to carry out violence; sources have told Politiken newspaper that he pretended to be drunk so as to get close enough to the synagogue security to shoot them. But in the choice of his victims, the young man is representative of a nascent breed of homegrown terrorists who combine radicalized views of Islam with common crime. “He’s a hybrid,” Ranstorp says of El-Hussein. “You don’t attack these specific targets based just on criminality. You need an ideology that legitimates the model.”

What Transformed Copenhagen Gunman From Petty Thug to Lethal Jihadi? | TIME.

Immigrants With PhDs: Difficult Transitions, Marginal Advantages – New Canadian Media – NCM

PhDs and EmploymentInteresting comparison on outcomes for immigrants and non-immigrants with PhDs, including country where PhD granted. Nice evidence-based approach to analysis:

Immigrants are less likely than non-immigrants to have studied in a country whose credentials are easily recognized and trusted by Canadian employers. While immigrants who earned their doctorates in the United States had an unemployment rate of only 3 per cent—in line with the unemployment rate of non-immigrants with doctorates—less than a quarter earned their doctorates from the United States. Immigrants who earned their doctorates in countries other than the U.S. or U.K. experience much higher rates of unemployment.

But location of study explains only part of the difference. Regardless of where they earn their PhDs, immigrants face a range of employment barriers, including less-developed employment networks, language barriers, and racism. Immigrants with PhDs fare much better than immigrants without PhDs, but they face difficult transitions, achieve only a slim advantage over non-immigrants with lower education, and continue to lag well behind their non-immigrant peers with PhDs.

Understanding and addressing the many barriers to immigrant PhDs is critical to ensuring that both they and Canada’s economy and society as a whole can benefit from the advanced education and skills they have obtained. The ongoing work of The Conference Board of Canada’s Centre for Skills and Post-Secondary Education and National Immigration Centre explores various dimensions of the challenges facing immigrants—those with and without PhDs. It will shed light on changes that might be required as to how immigrant PhDs are educated and trained in Canada, as well as how immigrants are selected and integrated into the Canadian economy and society more generally. Watch for future commentaries and reports from both centres in 2015.

Immigrants With PhDs:  Transitions, Marginal Advantages – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation

CIC Minister Alexander trying up to come up with a convincing rationale for the niqab ban bit mixing up the niqab at citizenship ceremonies with domestic violence issues (which are not, needless to say, unique to niqabi women) is clumsy.

PM is more convincing when he spoke about the symbolism of “joining the Canadian family,” as niqab signals separation, not integration, in a way that other religious symbols (hijab, kippa, kirpan) do not:

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, who was named as the respondent in Ishaq’s case, said Friday that people need to be identified and need to “commit to the oath.”

“We also are a government, and I think a people, that is concerned about protecting women from violence, protecting women from human smuggling, protecting women from barbaric practices like polygamy, genital mutilation, honour killings,” Alexander said.

“I worry when some of those defending the idea of keeping a woman behind a niqab in a citizenship ceremony are also those who say that we don’t need these protections for women from violence and from abuse. It’s something we’re all passionate about in Canada, there is no place for violence against women or any domestic violence in this country.”

Alexander said not showing your face is not a requirement of Islam and the “vast majority” of Muslim groups have said the 2011 law in question is fair and does not violate their freedom of religion.

Amira Elghawaby, human rights coordinator at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said many Muslims and Canadians disagree with the idea of the niqab, but if it’s someone’s sincere religious belief, the right to wear one is a legal matter protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

New Canadians take the oath of citizenship at a ceremony in Dartmouth, N.S. in 2014. A Federal Court ruling that women who wear a niqab do not have to remove it to take the oath is being appealed by the federal government. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

“Our opinions about these things really are irrelevant, what’s important is what it means to be Canadian and what it means to have freedom of religion and consciousness in this country,” she said.

“I think that unanimously, people who understand our Charter of Rights understand that this is a right that should be protected. She is not harming anyone by deciding to keep her niqab on … and whether I agree in it or not, I do not have the right to tell her to remove it because the law does not support that and the constitution does not support that.”

NCCM forgets that freedom of religion, like other fundamental freedoms, is not absolute.

Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation – Politics – CBC News.

The muted reaction of other political parties:

Federal opposition parties trod carefully Friday on the issue of whether a Toronto Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship.

NDP multiculturalism critic Andrew Cash said the Conservative government was conflating matters of security and ceremony by appealing a court decision permitting the woman to wear the facial covering.

“It’s unfortunate that in matters of ceremonial issues, Conservatives are willing to play partisan politics to simply ratchet things up to win votes,” Mr. Cash said.

Liberal immigration critic John McCallum said that the matter is before the courts. And party spokesman Cameron Ahmad said that “the responsibility to present the case falls on the government.”

Neither party would say outright whether it backed Zunera Ishaq’s bid to keep her face covered during the swearing-in portion of the ceremony.

Federal opposition parties tread carefully on issue of niqabs during citizenship oath

Critics call for fine-tuning of federal skilled immigration program (Express Entry)

Some initial comments and suggestions for improving Express Entry:

The decisive factor was securing a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) by a prospective employer to prove a candidate possesses skills that are in high demand.

Successful candidates were those who scored at least 886 points out of a maximum of 1,200. Securing a positive LMIA automatically earned applicants 600 points, while personal attributes such as education, language skills and work experience made up the other 600 possible points.

However, in the aftermath of Ottawa’s temporary foreign worker program controversy, critics say it has become too difficult to acquire an LMIA as officials tighten the screening for assessing if a foreigner’s skills are in demand.

“It’s the first draw under the new Express Entry program and the numbers were quite low. The pass mark was 35 per cent lower than the max. The kick of it is to get a positive LMIA,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Sergio Karas.

“But LMIAs are incredibly difficult to get. It’s such a laborious, time-intensive and complicated process for employers. Service Canada now looks for things to refuse an application. Why would employers spend the time and money on these applications?”

Karas also said that the pool of applicants should be widened by exempting some people from obtaining LMIAs, since workers from countries that have trade agreements with Canada don’t require the documents.

“That includes those who have graduated in Canada and currently hold postgraduate work permits, and those who are here under exempt categories, such as NAFTA professionals and intracompany transferees,” said Karas.

It will be interesting to watch whether or not the cut-off to be selected remains stable at 74% of the maximum number of points or declines (the second draw cut-off was 68 percent, but we need 6 months to start to see a trend line).

Critics call for fine-tuning of federal skilled immigration program | Toronto Star.

Fear Inc.: Behind the $57 Million Network Fueling Islamophobia in the U.S.

Interesting short video on some of the forces behind anti-Islam and anti-Muslim messaging (under 2 minutes):

 

James Comey, FBI director, gives frank talk on policing and race

More on unconscious bias, assumptions and instinctive reactions:

The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York, at the hands of white police officers, as well as the more recent slayings of two New York police officers, have raised difficult issues on both sides of the debate, Comey said.

One is that police officers who work in neighbourhoods where most street crime is committed by young black men may hold unconscious biases and be tempted to take what he called “lazy mental shortcuts” in dealing with suspicious situations.

That means officers may be influenced by feelings of “cynicism,” relying on assumptions they should not make and complicating the “relationship between police and the communities they serve,” he said.

‘The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others that officer has locked up. Two white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black, and that drives different behaviour.’

But another truth, he said, is that minorities in poor neighbourhoods too often inherit a “legacy of crime and prison,” a cycle he said must be broken to improve race relations with police.

Comey contended that everyone, regardless of background or colour, carries around biases.

“I am reminded of the song from the Broadway hit, Avenue Q — Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist …”

“But if we can’t help our latent biases, we can help our behaviour in response to those instinctive reactions, which is why we work to design systems and processes that overcome that very human part of us all,” he added.

James Comey, FBI director, gives frank talk on policing and race – World – CBC News.