Working site on citizenship and multiculturalism issues.
2024/07/31 Leave a comment
My podcast with Phil Gurski discussing C-71 and its possible impact on citizenship policy, security and operations
Source: Canada is immigrant friendly, but does it consider the national security angle?
2024/07/02 Leave a comment
Interesting commentary on the IRGC listing and related security issues:
Last week saw a flurry of activity from the Canadian government on national security. First, it announced on June 19 that the IRGC — Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — had been formally “listed” as a terrorist entity. Then the Senate approved Bill C-70 calling for the establishment of a foreign agent registry.
I will defer comments on C-70 for later and focus on the significance – if any – of the decision to add the IRGC to a large number of “listed entities.” The government crowed that it took this move after “years” of hard work and claimed this demonstrated, yet again, how seriously it takes national security.
Except that the IRGC move was not all that urgent: the Conservatives asked that the Liberal government list this group back in 2018, which makes you wonder what took so long. It is not as if the government needed to study whether the IRGC merited this rank given its 40 years of support for other listed entities (among which are Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and well-known penchant for mucking about in the Middle East and elsewhere. Calling it a terrorist group now does not exactly constitute rocket science.
The terrorist listing tool dates back to 2002 (full disclosure: I wrote the first al-Qaida listing that year while working as a senior terrorism analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS) and is used to identify groups the government believes engage in terrorist activity. It is handy largely from a financing perspective: if you are daft enough to send a cheque or e-transfer to Hamas leadership, you are guilty of terrorist financing.
But aside from that, the listing process suffers from two problems. First, it is not essential for a group (or individual) to be listed to warrant attention and investigation from our protectors (Communications Security Establishment, CSIS, RCMP, etc.). We at CSIS had been looking at al-Qaida for decades prior to the creation of the list; in other words, we did not need some mandarin to say “gee, AQ is a terrorist group, maybe our spies should monitor it.” Furthermore, the non-appearance of a group (or individual) from the list does not preclude investigating it (or him/her). Our spies aren’t waiting for orders to carry out their work in accordance with their well-established practices and legislative mandates.
Second, the listings are often purely political in nature. The addition of the Proud Boys in January 2021 was clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the raid on the U.S. Capitol by a dog’s breakfast of wankers, including some members of the U.S. branch of this group. The chapter in Canada has never carried out a single act of violence in this country and frankly, to cite a friend of mine who investigated the far right in Canada in the 1990s, couldn’t make a cheese sandwich. Sources told me that CSIS was not in favour of listing the Proud Boys as the group did not merit that kind of attention/status.
Sometimes groups are “delisted” for purely political reasons too. The Harper government took the anti-Iranian People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI, better known as the MeK) off the list in the early 2010s, despite its use of violence here and abroad. Go figure.
The timing of the IRGC decision also raises eyebrows. Just before the House of Commons rose for the summer? Did the government think no one was paying attention? Just before a byelection in Toronto? To show it takes national security “very seriously” (to quote Chrystia Freeland)? To deflect criticism of its handling of the ongoing People’s Republic of China interference gong show?
For what it is worth, I have no issue with naming the IRGC a terrorist entity. I worked as an Iranian analyst for 20 years at both CSE and CSIS, and I understand what this ideological bunch of thugs stands for.
At the same time, the choice of day/month for this action does nothing to shake my belief that this government neither comprehends nor cares about national security. The IRGC could have been listed 20 years ago, and in all honesty should have been part of the original process just after 9/11. Making a big deal of it now just looks, well, political.
Phil Gurski is President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting.
http://www.borealisthreatandrisk.com
Source: Gurski: Again, the Liberals show they don’t really understand national security
2024/04/17 Leave a comment
Of note:
There is much to take away from all the recent analysis and counter-analysis of foreign interference in Canada’s elections — and none of it is good.
In summary, our government minimized the threat to our electoral process, admitting that while there “may” have been “some minor” efforts to sway voter intention, when all was said and done the results were not affected. (I am waiting for someone to explain how this conclusion was drawn: does the government know the reasons individual Canadians voted and the reasons for their choice of party/candidate?)
From an intelligence angle, while not much new was introduced at the Foreign Interference Commission last week, a few takeaways need re-emphasis.
1. Canada’s “intelligence culture” is worse than I feared. Politicians and senior bureaucrats do not understand, appreciate or know how to use the information provided by The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and others to help them identify threats to our national security and counteract them.
2. The prime minister does not read intelligence reports (or does he? There were mixed messages on that front) but prefers to be “orally briefed.” In theory there is nothing wrong with that as long as those doing the briefing have a background, preferably a strong operational background, in intelligence. Relying on “advisers” with no experience at the spy coalface to tell you about the nature of intelligence and its meaning is akin to asking your cousin Clem about your lung cancer rather than going to a qualified medical source. Not a great strategy.
3. Our leader arrogantly dismissed CSIS intelligence — which was provided on at least 34 (34!) occasions over the past few years — on People’s Republic of China shenanigans as “inadequate” and uninteresting. Accusations such as “it was not evidence” expose a significant ignorance of what intelligence is and is not.
No, it is not collected to an evidentiary standard (and is not normally used in court cases) but what is eventually provided to the prime minister and his team has been very carefully analyzed, corroborated, debated, checked and double-checked and is subject to intense scrutiny before it leaves the building. Is it perfect? No, nothing is. But based on what I saw over 32 years at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and CSIS, the product is damn good. It is as accurate as can be given the sources and the fact that investigations leading to useful intelligence are in constant motion.
Where do we go from here, then? While the inquiry did provide the average Canadian with a peek into the shadows of espionage and counter espionage, under the guise of what foreign powers are doing on our soil to harm our democracy, this commission report will be relegated to the usual filing cabinet, like the results of other inquiries. In other words, thanks for coming and testifying but there is nothing to see here, so please move along.
The other sad fact is that national security issues are rarely, if ever, important on the campaign trail. Voters care more about inflation, interest rates, the housing crisis and what can be done to help a Canadian team win the Stanley Cup (31 years and counting). What the PRC and others are doing to threaten diasporas, steal votes and seek a government that will do its bidding simply does not register. Yes, these other challenges resonate more, but if you cannot ensure a free and fair election, what does your democracy stand on?
My normally optimistic self notes that we have seen this movie before and will see it again, unless we take major steps to prevent it. We need a national security adviser with real intelligence experience, not a part-time bureaucrat. We need the prime minister to meet regularly with the heads of CSIS, CSE and the RCMP.
We need a government to take intelligence and threats seriously.
Source: Gurski: Trudeau government shows it’s not serious about foreign election-meddling
2024/03/07 Leave a comment
Good concluding observation and unclear current inquiry will successfully address issues and oblige government to implement meaningful measures:
…There is no need to over-exaggerate the threat but a wise government would recognize that any diaspora is, in theory, open to such interference, especially if members came to our shores to flee oppressive regimes and are reminding Canadians and others of the nature of their former homeland’s actions. A government that took these threats seriously would properly fund and resource security intelligence and law enforcement organizations, then take the time to read and process their findings (rather than, say, accuse them of “racist” behaviour as the current prime minister has done).
We can both celebrate our diversity and guard against threats from foreign regimes. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We just need government to acknowledge that nations see some of our citizens as inconvenient whistleblowers whom they wish to stifle. We owe it to these newcomers to keep them safe, allow them to call out their ex-leaders, and not suffer as a result.
Phil Gurski is President/CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting, and a former senior strategic analyst at CSIS.
Source: Gurski: Canada’s foreign interference threat may be worse than we thought
2024/01/12 Leave a comment
Valid note of caution. Encouragingly, Minister Miller was frank about this concern and the need for rigorous security checks as well as the difference between Ukraine and Gaza:
More to the point, the ongoing war in Gaza has spurred the Liberal government to announce special measures to help the family members of Canadians get out of the war zone. In theory, this is a bold and welcome move but does have a security nexus. Hamas is the ruling party in the area — and is a listed terrorist entity in Canada. Support for it in the wake of Israeli military action after the Oct. 7 terrorist attack in southern Israel is on the rise, in the region, worldwide and possibly in Canada. It is possible and perhaps even probable that Hamas members or supporters will attempt to join the queue. They cannot be allowed to succeed (I am sure CSIS is well aware of the likelihood). Imagine a scenario where a recent arrival carried out an attack in the name of Hamas on Canadian soil: I would prefer not to have to go there.
We do not want to become a nation where the anti-immigrant lobby gains influence and status. We see what is happening in Europe (for instance, the political party led by far-right, anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders recently won the most seats in the Netherlands) and it ain’t pretty. One way to avoid that eventuality is to allow our security agencies to do their job, then take their advice to heart. The consequences of not doing so are dire indeed.
Phil Gurski is President/CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting, and a firmer CSIS employee. http://www.borealisthreatandrisk.com
Source: Gurski: Canada’s open-door immigration policy shouldn’t mean anything goes
2020/05/20 Leave a comment
Phil Gurski and I have a conservation regarding links or not between immigration and terrorism. Hope you find it interesting:
Canada is a nation of immigrants. It takes in 300,000 + a year. Does immigration pose a national security threat (i.e. are we letting in terrorists)? Listen to my talk with an old friend from Citizenship and Immigration.
Borealis talks with Andrew Griffith, former Director General of Citizenship and Multiculturalism in the Canadian government.
2020/02/13 2 Comments
Phil Gurski, from the security perspective:
Citizenship is an important part of the modern world. Most of us are a citizen of at least one country. Having citizenship confers special privileges: the right to vote, the right to receive certain social assistance, the right to work, and a feeling of belonging. It should not be dismissed or used frivolously.
A lot of countries also grant citizenship to those who emigrate from their homelands to a new one (sometimes called ‘naturalized’). This process often takes some time – years in most cases – and is accompanied by all sorts of checks and reviews. After all, no state wants to bring in people with shady backgrounds who are capable of causing mayhem once they become ‘one of us.’
In my experience in Canada, the citizenship pathway is as good as it can be. The necessary agencies, including intelligence and law enforcement, are part of the decision-making process, ensuring to the greatest degree possible that we prevent ‘undesirables’ from making their new home in our nation. Is the system perfect? No, but it is very robust.
Under what conditions, then, should citizenship be revoked? We should assume here that the only type that can be removed is that which has been granted by the state: ordinarily those born in a country automatically receive it at birth (children of foreign diplomats may be an exception), and it far from clear whether there is anything that could – or should – lead a state to rescind birth citizenship (NB Canada is currently dealing with the phenomenon of ‘birth tourism’ whereby pregnant women, often from Asia, travel to give birth in Canadian hospitals. Where all this goes is under debate now.)
Modern terrorism has thrown a wrench into all this. In hundreds of countries citizens have radicalized to violence in accordance with an ideology, left the confines of their homeland, joined a group abroad and become part of it, committed atrocities in the group’s name on occasion and eventually seek to come home. Not surprisingly, few states want these individuals back as they could very well organize or commit acts of terrorism in their backyards. What can we do to prevent their return?
Under these circumstances, is citizenship revocation OK? Normally, no. Our governments take away what they have granted only if it can be demonstrated the process in place at the time of application was fraudulent. In other words, if so-and-so lied on a form and tried to hide certain facts from those investigating the claim, that application can be subsequently voided. This should not be controversial as all the relevant facts were not made available when needed and as a result the individual does not deserve to become one of us.
What, then, do we do in cases of terrorists, some of whom were born in our countries, some of whom got citizenship after having moved, but became terrorists later (sometime much, much later)? After all, the vast majority of terrorists are made not born. Can we take away their birthright/gift?
In the former case, no. Few if any countries have tried to do this and where they have they have tied themselves in legal knots. The UK has taken away the citizenship of ISIS member Shamima Begum despite the inconvenient fact that she was born in England. The government has tried to argue that she is ‘entitled’ to Bangladeshi citizenship as her ancestry lies in that country; hence, she has not been rendered stateless. Bangladesh sees the matter quite differently.
Then we have the case of Iyman Faris, an al-Qaeda terrorist who was found guilty and sentenced in 2003 for his role in a plot to cut the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. A federal judge in Columbus, Ohio, stripped him of his naturalized U.S. citizenship after ruling that he had lied on immigration papers before becoming a citizen in 1999 (he entered the U.S. using the passport and visa of someone he’d met in Bosnia). The official also ruled that Faris’ terrorist affiliations demonstrated a lack of commitment to the U.S. Constitution.
Two years earlier another judge had rejected a similar request by the government, saying at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Mr. Faris’ misrepresentations influenced the decision to grant him citizenship.
Where does this leave us? In a legal quandary, that’s where. The UK handling of Ms. Begum beggars disbelief as she is the citizen of one and only one country. The U.S. strategy in the case of Faris suggests that anyone who does anything illegal at any point in their life is at risk of having their citizenship clawed back. Neither case is ideal.
The bottom line is that Ms. Begum, and perhaps Mr. Faris, were radicalized where they lived and worked. They are a product of a part of our society – not a proud part, but a part nonetheless. Recalling citizenship merely displaces the problem: it does not solve it.
2019/08/13 Leave a comment
Good piece by Gurski:
I never worked in foreign affairs or for Foreign Affairs (or Global Affairs Canada, as it is now known, having once been designated External Affairs and many other names), but I know a little about the subject. After all, you cannot work in intelligence for three decades without picking up a thing or two on how nations manage their relations with other states.
I do know that at times a country has to hold its nose when engaging with a foreign partner whose actions are seen as, at a minimum, distasteful or, at a maximum, grotesque. In this light, I cannot imagine how the current crew at the Lester B. Pearson Building in Ottawa are handling Canada-U.S. ties, given the present occupant of the White House.
There are also those who maintain that some level of relationship is better than none. A complete cut in ties removes any form of influence or dialogue, although there are other fora (the UN for example) where national representatives can grab a coffee and chitchat about all things statecraft.
On the other hand, there are times and circumstances where a government has little choice but to close doors. Sometimes a state will engage in activities that are truly heinous and no country should allow such to go unpunished.
Saudi Arabia is now in that club. Canada has chosen, at least under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to criticize the kingdom over a variety of incidents; ranging from its treatment of women activists, to its disastrous war in Yemen, which is directly causing a massive humanitarian crisis. The event that overshadows everything, however, is last year’s murder and dismemberment of a Saudi dissident, Jamal Kashoggi, at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Everyone knows that he was killed on orders from the very top of the Saudi royal family, their incredulous denials, notwithstanding. In return, the Saudis have suspended relations, booted our ambassador in Riyadh out and recalled their own man from Ottawa. There has not been a lot of movement on this file in some time although Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her Saudi counterpart have been “discussing ideas to de-escalate.”
Into this mix comes the Conservative Party, whose foreign affairs critic, Conservative MP Erin O’Toole, has said that a government led by Andrew Scheer will try to “win some trust” with the Saudis by focusing on improving business links. O’Toole acknowledges that for some Canadians re-establishing ties with Saudi Arabia will be a “tough sell.”
Ya think?
I fail to see why so many states are still fawning over Saudi Arabia, and especially over the king-in-waiting and international star Muhammad bin Salman (or MBS as he is called: some say the acronym stands for “Mister Bone Saw,” a reference to how Kashoggi was cut up). Yes, yes, it is all about oil and MBS’ plans to modernize his nation and the need to have a stalwart ally against the real menace: Iran.
Except that the crown prince’s words are probably just that: words. Saudi Arabia remains a heavily conservative Wahhabi Muslim state that has exported its hateful strain of Islam worldwide for decades and crushes any internal dissent forcefully. True, there has been some crackdown on the more egregious religious hate-mongers, but this leopard is highly unlikely to change its spots any time soon.
I find it hard to believe that many governments, including the U.S., have been giving the kingdom a pass in the post 9/11 period. Recall that 15 of the 19 hijackers that fateful day on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis, bred on Saudi Wahhabi Islam. And for all the noises about a mellowing of Islam in the desert kingdom, there is ample evidence that Saudi-trained imams are continuing to spread Wahhabi poison around the world. And this is what an ally does?
I realize that money trumps values a lot of the time. In this regard, there is a lot of money to be made by having a robust relationship with Saudi Arabia, particularly in the defence sector. But what is more important: trade or the values Canada stands for?
So O’Toole, if your party indeed gains power in October, have a re-think over going cap in hand to the Saudis. We really don’t need them. Their actions are antithetical to who we are. I’d like to suggest that you be a little more Canadian yourself and ditch this idea.
Source: Why Canada should not be in a hurry to re-embrace Saudi Arabia
2019/05/07 Leave a comment
Sigh….:
The government has again revised a report that is supposed to update Canadians on the major terrorist threats they face, removing all references to Islamist extremism.
While the report, first released in December, had initially identified attackers “inspired by violent Sunni Islamist ideology” as the main terrorist threat to Canada, that line has now been cut.
All mentions of “Sunni” and “Shia” extremism were also taken out of the annual report, along with section headings on both types of terrorism.
The so-called Islamic State, Al Qaeda and their regional affiliates use terrorism to promote their versions of Sunni Islamist extremist ideology, while Hezbollah is a Shia extremist group.
But Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters Thursday he wanted the terrorist threat report to use language that “did not impugn or condemn an entire religion.”
“The issue here are people who engage in terrorist activity that actually defies the precept of their religion, so to allow their deviant behavior to be a criticism of a total religion or a total culture is just wrong,” he said.
“The idea, the objective here is to get language which is precise, which focuses on the issue that is being reported on in a clear and accurate way that does not impugn an entire community or an entire religion that is not responsible for the terrorist behavior.”
The government had already cut the term “Sikh extremism” from the report following complaints. A section heading on violence linked to the fight for an independent Sikh homeland is now gone.
The latest change was announced on Twitter and Facebook by Liberal MP Ruby Sahota, who wrote that she had worked with Goodale to “remove language” from the report.
“The report no longer contains the terms ‘Sikh,’ ‘Shia,’ and ‘Sunni,’” she wrote. “Words matter. Our agencies and departments must never equate any one community or entire religions with extremism.”
But in a blog post Wednesday, former Canadian Security Intelligence Service analyst Phil Gurski likened the government’s repeated second-guessing of the report to a comedy routine.
“To my mind this is just political correctness and electioneering gone mad,” wrote Gurski, who also worked at Public Safety Canada, which produced the threat report.
“The inability to call a threat what it is makes it harder to identify and neutralize it.”
After the report prompted complaints, Goodale said he was confident it was “never intended to encompass or malign entire religions.”
He said he had asked officials to review the terminology “and make the appropriate changes to the language used throughout the government to describe extremism.”
The latest revision of the report contains no references to religions with the exception of terrorist group names such as ISIS and the International Sikh Youth Federation.
Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus accused the government of playing politics and said he did not understand why it would “just erase this information critical for the security of Canada.”
Despite cutting references to Sikh, Sunni and Shia extremism from the annual report, Public Safety Canada continues to use the terms in its online list of outlawed terrorist groups.
Asked how the descriptions maligned communities, Goodale’s spokesperson Scott Bardsley said: “The impact of these terms may not be readily apparent to some who come from places of privilege, who seldom experience judgment based on skin colour or religion alone.”
Source: Government removes all mention of ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’ extremism from terrorism threat report
2019/05/03 Leave a comment
Agree. Fuzzy wording is not helpful and one can label in an appropriate, focused manner:
If you have never heard the comedy routine ‘The 2,000 year old man” by Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks, you are really missing something. The original dates back to 1961 but it is still very, very relevant and very, very funny.
In one part, Mel Brooks, playing the 2,000 year-old man, says that WWII lasted longer than it should have and that was all Winston Churchill’s fault. Here’s what Mr. Brooks’ character had to say about that: “‘Ve must conquer da Narjies!’ Now, we were fighting and killing Nazis. We all left and went looking for Narjies!” Or another way to put it is that Churchill extended the war because he told everyone to defeat “the Nar-zis” and the troops stopped fighting the Germans and started looking for Narzis.
Sometimes I wonder if Public Safety Canada would be better run by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner (full disclosure: I worked as a senior policy advisor there, on secondment at CSIS, from October 2013 until my retirement from the civil service in April 2015). The department cannot seem to get the annual 2018 Terrorist Threat to Canada public report right. It has been changed at least twice since it came out and I am not so sure that more changes are not forthcoming.
What, then, has changed? Well, nothing more crucial than the way the department has chosen to describe the terrorist threat to Canada. Under pressure from certain groups – first Canadian Sikhs then Canadian Muslims (gee, is an election coming up perhaps?) – the phrases ‘Sikh extremism’, ‘Sunni Islamist extremism’ and ‘Shia extremism’ have been excised and replaced by anodyne phrases that are only partially reflective of the actual threat. In their place are ‘ extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India’ and ‘individuals or groups who are inspired by violent ideologies and terrorist groups, such as Daesh or al-Qaida (AQ).’
Why the change? Clearly, in order not to offend Canadian Sikhs and Muslims by lumping them together with the very small number of their fellow co-religionists who have opted to use violence to get what they want, and use religion to justify their actions. What is the harm in that?
A lot as it turns out. These phrases are highly inaccurate both for what they say and what they fail to say. Let’s start with ‘extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India.’ What is wrong with that? To put it bluntly, they are all Sikhs – nary a Jew or a Seventh-Day Adventist among them. So, calling them ‘Sikh extremists’ is correct. Note that by doing so there is no intent, explicit or implicit, that all Sikh Canadians support this use of violence.
What about ‘individuals or groups who are inspired by violent ideologies and terrorist groups, such as Daesh or al-Qaida (AQ)?’ Aside from the ridiculous insistence on ‘Daesh’ rather than Islamic State (Minister Goodale: Daesh is Arabic for ‘Islamic State’ by the way), this phrase is only partially accurate. I know from my days at CSIS that yes some Canadians are inspired by these terrorist groups but there is also a huge swathe that radicalise to violence in the name of greater Sunni Islamist extremist thought (Shia Islamist extremists are a different beast altogether) that has little or nothing to do with AQ or IS or any other terrorist group. Oh and guess what else? They are all Muslims – nary a Buddhist or an animist among them. Again, using the term ‘Sunni Islamist extremism’, which is what we called it when I was at CSIS, does not mean all Canadian Muslims are terrorists.
To my mind this is just political correctness and electioneering gone mad. Just as ‘trigger warnings’ seem to be everywhere these days, it seems that if any group of 3-5 Canadians say they are offended at something the government caves to their demands.
The inability to call a threat what it is makes it harder to identify and neutralise it. I sure hope that my former colleagues at CSIS are not swallowing this political pablum. And I sure hope that Public Safety doesn’t make more changes to the Public Terrorist Threat Report or before you know it we’ll all be chasing neo-Narzis while the real far right neo-Nazis run free.
Click image for book purchase
Multicultural Meanderings 