CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam

A reminder that the threats are broader than government messaging and labelling would suggest:

“Lone wolf” attacks more often come from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologies than from Islamic radicalism, internal CSIS documents say.

Citing recent academic research, the unclassified documents note extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideology has been the “main ideological source” for 17 per cent of so-called lone wolf attacks worldwide.

Islamic extremism accounted for 15 per cent of such attacks, the document noted, while left-wing extremism and “black power” groups followed with 13 per cent. Anti-abortion activism (8 per cent) and nationalism/separatism (7 per cent) rounded out the list, while in 40 per cent of cases there was no clear ideological motivation.

“Lone actors tend to create their own ideologies that combine personal frustrations and grievances, with wider political, social, or religious issues,” note the documents prepared for Michael Peirce, assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

“This study confirms that lone actor terrorism runs the gamut of ideological persuasions.”

CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam | Toronto Star.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’

How does the Government seriously think that this ongoing line of unsubstantiated allegations helps increase cooperation with Canadian Muslim groups and Canadian Muslims in generally in helping reduce the risk of radicalization and violent extremism?

Just reinforcing previous examples of divisive language and the lack of a de-radicalization strategy on “soft” measures to reduce what are real risks:

During a question-and-answer session following National Council of Canadian Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee’s presentation to the House public safety committee on Bill C-51, Diane Ablonczy used her allotted time to “put on the record” what she described as “a continuing series of allegations” that the NCCM has ties to groups that have expressed support for “Islamic terrorist groups,” including Hamas.

“I think it is fair to give you an opportunity to address these troubling allegations,” Ablonczy said.

“In order to work together, there needs to be a satisfaction that, you know, this can’t be a half-hearted battle against terrorism. Where do you stand in light of these allegations?”

Gardee pushed back.

Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told Diane Ablonczy that her line of questioning Thursday was “entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.” (CBC News)

“First and foremost, I’ll say on the record that NCCM has condemned violent terrorism and extremism in all of its forms, regardless of who perpetrates it for whatever reason,” he told the committee.

“However, the premise of your question is false, and entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.”

Gardee pointed to the group’s history as an independent, non-profit, grassroots Canadian Muslim civil liberties organization with a “robust and public” track record.

“These are precisely the types of slanderous statements that have resulted in litigation that is ongoing,” he said, including a defamation lawsuit launched last year against the Prime Minister’s Office over “false statements” linking the group to Hamas made by now-former spokesman Jason MacDonald.

“The NCCM is confident that the courts will provide the necessary clarity on these points to ensure they are never repeated again,” he said. “The NCCM is not going to submit to a litmus test of loyalty used against Canadian Muslims and their institutions… which underlie such offensive questions.”

“McCarthyesque-type questions protected by parliamentary privilege are unbecoming of this committee,” he said, referring to a style of questioning used by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, imputing guilt with little or no evidence to back it up.

In response, Ablonczy mused that Gardee seemed to have been prepared for her question — as, she said, she thought he might be — before switching topics to hear his thoughts on effective anti-radicalization initiatives.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’ – Politics – CBC News.

What’s driving teen girls to jihad?

Michael Petrou trying to find explanations where there may be no satisfactory ones: why some are attracted to joining a cult-like organization and others not:

It may be true that anger about proposed polices regarding religious dress in Quebec, or what is perceived to be Canada’s insufficient support for Palestinians or Muslims elsewhere, contributed in some way to the decision of young Canadian women to join a genocidal death cult in Syria. But they seem like inadequate explanations.

Islamic State’s most notable characteristics, after all, are not vestmental liberty or practical support for Palestinians, but filmed decapitations, sexual slavery and mass murder. These elements of Islamic State’s approach to governance are all well-publicized, mostly by Islamic State itself. And they make the Canadian woman’s assertion that her sister—“the sweetest, most innocent, timid person I know”—joined Islamic State because she wanted to do something about the injustice in the world sound hollow.

They also ignore aspects of Islamic State’s attraction that we seem comparatively more ready to accept when it draws in men: the group’s Islamic supremacism, and its fetish for gore and extreme violence. “So many beheadings at the same time. Allahu Akbar [God is great], this video is beautiful,” tweeted one Western woman cited by ISD. Another, also cited by ISD, writes: “I was happy to see the beheading of that kaffir [unbeliever]. I just rewinded to the cutting part. Allahu akbar! I wonder what he was thinking b4 the cut.”

According to Jayne Huckerby, an associate professor of law at Duke University who has advised the United Nations on women in conflict, gender stereotypes distort popular conceptions of why Western women might join Islamic State. “We do still very much operate in a world where the idea that women don’t have agency—that they must be tricked or under the influence or brainwashed or they only joined to become jihadi brides—is very much still a dominant frame.”

There may be an element of brainwashing at work, something William McCants, a Brookings Institution fellow and author of a forthcoming book about Islamic State, describes as the group’s “cult-like pull.” It also appears that skilled recruiters can strongly influence young minds. But these are forces that affect men and women. And yet it is women whom we are more likely to describe as “lost” to Islamic State, rather than as willing partisans. This is comforting, but it is also illusionary.

No Western woman with access to the Internet or daily news can claim ignorance about Islamic State’s horrors, including those it inflicts on women it has captured. But young girls from Canada and across the West are joining the group by the hundreds just the same. “Many of them are going over joyously, with eyes wide open,” says McCants, “absolutely and completely understanding what awaits them there.”

What’s driving teen girls to jihad?.

Canada stands with peaceful Muslims, Kenney says

In contrast to the PM’s messaging and wedge politics on security, radicalization and Canadian Muslims, and the Conservative Party’s fundraising machine, Minister Kenney borrow from President Obama’s language:

Kenney, who is also Harper’s longtime multiculturalism minister, noted the cost borne by Muslims facing extremist elements around the world.

“The vast majority of the victims of this dystopian vision of the caliphate from Nigeria to the Philippines are innocent, peaceful Muslim people who simply want to raise their families in peace and security,” Kenney told the Manning Networking Conference, a conservative policy gathering.

“And we stand with them, we stand with them around the world, we stand with them in Iraq today, we stand in defence of the vast majority of Muslims who reject this cult of violence. Canadians are in solidarity with them.”

Since the attacks this winter in France and in Denmark by Islamic extremists, the Tories have spoken out about their fight against “barbaric cultural practices” and against women who would cover their faces with the niqab during citizenship ceremonies. “Not the way we do things here,” read one Conservative party online message.

Harper referred specifically to mosques as places of radicalization, and unlike U.S. President Barack Obama has offered no messages of outreach to the Muslim community in the past several months.

“The prime minister of this country has a responsibility to bring people together in this country, not to divide us by pandering to some people’s fears,” Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said recently.

Harper’s office pointed to a speech the Prime Minister made in December in which he expressed gratitude to those Muslim Canadians who spoke out against attacks that killed soldiers in Ottawa and Montreal last year.

Kenney also rejected the suggestion the party has alienated Canadian Muslims, pointing out he is a frequent visitor to mosques and islamic community organizations, and that his government has offered support against islamophobic vandalism and threats.

He also noted the help the community has offered in combating homegrown terrorism.

“We commend leaders and grassroots members of Canadian Muslim communities for having co-operated with police and intelligence services in reporting incidents or individuals who might be of concern,” said Kenney.

“Indeed our security and police agencies will confirm that potentially violent instances have been prevented, radicalization has been diminished thanks to the proactive co-operation of many in the Canadian Muslim communities so I think that message is clear.”

But it matters that this more inclusive language is made by a Minister, no matter how senior, rather than the PM himself, suggesting the triumph of wedge politics over the very real need, in any counter-radicalization strategy, to have the support of the Muslim communities.

Canada stands with peaceful Muslims, Kenney says – The Globeand Mail.

Interestingly, the Ottawa Citizen account of the speech neglected to mention any of these messages, focussing on Kenney’s hard-line messaging on the risks of further terrorist incidents (valid) and justification of C-51 (not).

Kenney says homegrown terrorism a ‘reality’ in Canada

Harper senators hold McCarthyesque hearings: Siddiqui | Toronto Star

Not the Senate’s finest hour, particularly on the Government side:

[Liberal Senator] Mitchell accused [Marc] Lebuis for making “very, very sweeping allegations, based on anecdotal evidence,” without “any intellectual, academic, empirical evidence.”

But the Conservative senators thought otherwise.

Senator Beyak: “Thank you, Mr. Lebuis, for an excellent, well-informed and documented presentation.” Senator Stewart Olsen: “Thank you, Mr. Lebuis. What you are suggesting is that vigilance is necessary for the preservation of democracy and that our ancestors were extremely vigilant.”

Another witness was Shahina Siddiqui (no relation), head of the Islamic Social Services Association, Winnipeg: “Please do not treat Muslim Canadians as if they are the enemy because we are not … Don’t give in to fear and propaganda, otherwise, we will tear each other apart.”

Senator Beyak told her, thrice, to stop being “thin-skinned.” Canadians are “tired of hearing excuses. If 21 Christians were beheaded by Jews, they would be called ‘radical extremist Jews.’ And if pilots were burned in cages by a Christian, they would be called ‘radical violent Christians’ … What would you answer to people who are legitimately concerned” (emphasis mine).

So, this Muslim from Manitoba must answer for the atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

But she remained remarkably calm: “Canadians are as concerned about the loss of innocent life, whether it is done by ISIL, Al Qaeda or by all other terrorist groups. The number one target of these groups are Muslims.

“It’s not about Muslim versus Canadians or Canadians versus Muslims; it is humanity versus terrorism.”

Liberal Senator Joseph Day told her:

“I have a grave, grave concern that we’re going to see more retaliation. We’re going to see more bullet holes in mosques and mosques burned …

“As soon as your community starts seeing this activity, which has been triggered by something happening way off somewhere else, more and more young people are going to join up to go fight for the jihad. It’s going to be more and more difficult for your community … We’ve got to stop it now or it’s going to get out of control.”

Siddiqui: “We have to stop it now because we have the experience of Japanese internment. We did that to Japanese-Canadians out of fear. I hope this is not going to go there.”

She told me later that the committee hearing felt like the “Tea Party was in action. It was a very charged atmosphere — more like an inquisition from her (Senator Beyak).”

Harper senators hold McCarthyesque hearings: Siddiqui | Toronto Star.

‘This is what Islam tells us to do’: A rare glimpse inside a Saudi Arabian prison – where Isis terrorists are showered with perks and privileges

The Saudi approach to de-radicalization:

“If you lose these inmates when they are in prison, they will come out of prison more radical,” Turki said, adding that supporting their families also helps make sure they, too, don’t “fall into the hands of the terrorists.”

Turki said that about 20 percent of those who have gone through the rehabilitation program have returned to terrorism-related activities. Many rights activists think the failure rate is higher than Saudi officials admit.

Critics often argue that Saudi Arabia, or at least many rich Saudis, supports violent Islamist radicals, and that the government’s emphasis on rehabilitation reflects a certain sympathy with terrorists.

But Saudi officials argue that no country, except for Syria and Iraq, is more directly threatened by Isis. They say their approach to convicted terrorists is more pragmatic and effective than simply throwing thousands of them in prison for decades and hoping that their friends and family don’t become radicalized.

“I don’t think we should be reflexively opposed to these programs,” said Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University. “The hard-core, wild-eyed fanatics we are never going to rehabilitate, but a solution that says they are all the same and we should lock them away forever isn’t effective, either.”

Hoffman said a 20 percent recidivism rate is far better than the 70 to 75 percent recidivism rate for violent criminals in the United States. He said prisons without rehabilitation programs can become “terrorist universities” that turn minor offenders into hardened militants. He also said that inmates who are coaxed away from radical thinking can also provide valuable intelligence about terror groups.

“Programs like this can be enormously effective,” he said.

‘This is what Islam tells us to do’: A rare glimpse inside a Saudi Arabian prison – where Isis terrorists are showered with perks and privileges – Middle East – World – The Independent.

ISIS Vandals Destroy Works of Art That Challenge Their Take on Islam

On the latest nihilism of ISIS and denial of the richness of civilization, Islamic and otherwise:

The enemies of modernity and tolerance and civility and liberty, and all the other values that classical liberals hold dear, believe that destroying the products of the arts and humanities will further their goals. They think the statues they are smashing to splinters and the words they are burning are important and influential enough to warrant their destruction.

This is not, it is worth noting, a radical innovation by ISIS. There is a long history of fundamentalist Islamic groups destroying cultural treasures. The Buddhas of Bamiyan. The “end of the world” gate in the ancient city of Timbuktu. Over 95 percent of ancient Mecca. Countless thousands of ancient manuscripts. Groups from ISIS to the Taliban to Wahabist Saudi clerics have made it clear: Everything must be obliterated.

They claim, of course, that these things must be destroyed because they are idolatrous in themselves or might inspire idolatrous thinking in others. But I think it is far more likely that ISIS wants them destroyed because these objects prove the falseness of their version of history.

From the 8th to the 14th centuries, the flourishing, trading, creative, scientific, philosophic, artistic and intellectual marvel that was the Islamic Golden Age produced a ringing argument against the ISIS narrative that their way—the way of extremism and the sword—is the only path to success.

Golden Age science, mathematics and medicine were the envy of the world. The tolerance and intellectual curiosity modeled by thinkers like Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd created a civilization where, more than anywhere else, Muslims, Jews and Christians were able to study, trade and live in unprecedented peace and productivity.

And this Golden Age died when people who would have been very much at home in ISIS began to gain power.

For ISIS to continue to spread their evil, they must destroy the history that gives evidence against them—by destroying the museums and libraries that protect it—just as they must destroy the living humans who fight them.

Are the arts and humanities important? Do they accomplish anything we should care about?

Look at those who want to destroy them. Consider what their ends are. Then tell me.

ISIS Vandals Destroy Works of Art That Challenge Their Take on Islam.

Don’t equate radical thoughts with actions, academics tell senator

Sigh ….

Conservative Senator Daniel Lang told a crowd of students at the University of Ottawa’s Public Policy Conference on Saturday that “we need to recognize that radicalized thoughts lead to radicalized actions.” But just last week Lorne Dawson, co-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, told the committee that research on radicalization consistently demonstrates that very few individuals who hold radical ideas ever actually graduate to committing violence and that generalizations about radicalization don’t help the fight to counter extremism in Canada.

“Research literature is overwhelmingly clear there is a very poor correlation between espousing ideas and engaging in action,” Dawson told iPolitics on Monday. “Obviously some people on the committee heard what we were saying and some didn’t.”

Dawson’s co-director, Daniel Hiebert, also said he disagreed with Lang’s point and noted it’s important to keep in mind the distinction between having radical thoughts and acting on those thoughts.

“You can’t perform a radicalized action unless you had a radicalized idea so yes, there is a connection between those things but nowhere near everyone who has radical ideas will perform radicalized actions,” he said.  “The literature on these issues is very clear that it’s another conversion process. There’s one conversion process that happens between thinking mainstream ideas and having extremist ideas – that’s a pretty big kind of hurdle to jump over, it’s a pretty big conversion process that happens there. There’s yet another conversion process that happens between having extremist ideas and thinking that violence is an appropriate way to propagate those extremist ideas. So there’s no simple linkage between those two things. There’s sort of a necessary linkage — as I said, you can’t have B without A but A does not necessarily lead to B. “

Lang’s office sent an emailed statement in response for a request for clarification of his comments.

The statement reiterates the text of his speech at the conference.

“To be clear, I stated: We need to recognize that radical ideas lead to radical actions. It does not mean we should criminalize ideas, but we need to identify them; state that they have no place in Canadian society, even at university campuses – where sometimes the cloak of free speech is abused; and denounce those promoting them and facilitating such ideas – even if they are done in the name of religious ideology or doctrine,” the statement reads.

Don’t equate radical thoughts with actions, academics tell senator (iPolitics)

‘Soft security’ measures also needed to battle home-grown radicalism, experts say

More coverage of the work by Lorne Dawson and Dan Hiebert on the need for greater emphasis on anti-radicalization and de-radicalization programming, the softer yet necessary prevention programming:

It would take an immense public education effort and support for families and Muslim communities to have difficult conversations, to provide support and resources. Dawson draws the comparison to how we now approach suicide. Just as parents and teachers should never ignore a 14- or 15-year-old who says he’s going to kill himself, Canadians have to respond to young people espousing sympathetic feelings for extremist ideologies from the get-go.

“If someone says, ‘Anyone who is not a Sunni is a kuffar and they should all be killed,’ that’s not a line you let pass. The trouble is if your only recourse right now is to phone the police or the RCMP, it’s not going to happen,” says Dawson.

That’s because the Canadian government has chosen to focus on “hard security” — boosting investigative powers, intelligence gathering, arrest powers. There is no provision in the Conservative government’s massive anti-terror Bill C-51 to provide new resources for de-radicalization programs — the kind of “soft security” measures that Dawson, Hiebert and others say are key.

By that they mean interventions involving law enforcement, teachers, social workers and psychiatrists — resources that are woefully lacking at the moment for Muslim communities across Canada, the Senate committee has heard.

The researchers say Ottawa should look to other countries, pointing to a program in Britain called Channel that draws in police, social workers, psychiatrists and teachers “to deal with the other aspects of that person’s life that need to be fixed, to get them to divert from that path towards radicalization and violence.”

“That’s expensive, but, again: an ounce of prevention, a pound of cure.”

And they urged continued funding for research projects such as theirs. “We don’t adequately understand radicalization yet,” said Dawson. “To put it in simple terms, we’re very worried . . . . If you don’t have a fine enough conception of what’s causing the problem, it’s difficult to develop the most effective counter measures.”

‘Soft security’ measures also needed to battle home-grown radicalism, experts say | Toronto Star.

And a good interview with Dawson:

The lure of terrorism: Q&A with cult expert Lorne Dawson (with video)

Islamic Scholars Convene an Anti-ISIS Summit in Mecca – The Atlantic

Good piece contrasting the US-led CVE summit and the Muslim World League, a Saudi-backed alliance of Islamic NGOs, led summit in Mecca on “Islam and Counterterrorism:”

According to Will McCants, director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, there’s a logic behind the divergence in messaging from Washington and Mecca. “This conversation can’t really happen in the U.S., or in the West, because the [Obama] administration is determined not to frame this [conflict] or have it be interpreted as a religious war,” he told me. “It wants to take that talking point away from its enemies.” McCants added that Muslim leaders may also feel more comfortable speaking openly about an issue that is afflicting their own community. When the U.S. tries to adjudicate theological issues, he said, “it can discredit the people who reach the same conclusions we do. If Muslims and the U.S. government say these guys don’t represent Islam, it makes the Muslims look like pawns of the United States.”

The priorities of the CVE and Muslim World League summits were also distinct. The impetus for the conference in Mecca appears to have been the Saudi government’s belief that Islamist terrorism represents not only a threat to the security of the region, but also an existential threat to Islam itself. It would therefore have been impossible for the speakers to ignore ISIS’s Islamic roots. The conference’s organizers cast their mission as developing a coordinated campaign to promote a moderate, peaceful vision of Islam that disavows the violence and apostasy that ISIS thrives on. The program, above all, emphasized that this is a specifically Muslim issue, and placed the onus on the Muslim community to craft a narrative that overpowers the Islamic State’s.

In comparison, the CVE summit was more concerned with addressing radicalization in all its forms, and emphasized the economic and social conditions in which people tend to become radicalized. The agenda also had a largely domestic focus despite the United States being low on the list of countries contributing foreign fighters to jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq.

But whether ISIS’s deeds are labeled “violent extremism” or “Islamized terrorism,” the conversations in Washington and Mecca had at least one thing in common: They deepened the debate over whether ISIS and its fellow travelers are “Islamic,” and whether the answer matters in the first place. That debate is not just academic. It has real consequences for how the Islamic State’s opponents mount their counteroffensive.

Given the somewhat uncomfortable role that Saudi Arabia has played in encouraging the spread of Salafism (albeit non-violent forms), somewhat ironic that they now have to focus on some of the indirect consequences.

Islamic Scholars Convene an Anti-ISIS Summit in Mecca – The Atlantic.