Talk:Terrorism in Canada

Why not, Air India 182?

Why is the terrorist bombing of the Air India 182 overwhelmingly carrying Canadians NOT a terrorist act? It is disrespectful to count it as an international attack or threat. To date, it is worst act of terrorism perpetuated against Canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.0.160 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

FLQ

I note that User:SimonP has moved this page back to the international terrorist attacks title. The reason given in the edit summary is that the "intent of the page" is to avoid listing hundreds of FLQ attacks. I do not see the motivation for this, if a list of terrorist attacks is encyclopedic, why are those not encyclopedic. If the concern is that they will overwhelm the article, just make a section for them below the list of non-FLQ attacks. I plan to move the article back, but will wait a bit as a courtesy if there is any desire for talk page discussion. -- cmh 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping them separate in a separate section of this article would be fine, but an entirely new article listing attacks by domestic terrorist groups, would, in my opinion, be better. - SimonP 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer having two sections within the same article. As we are seeing already, the recent arrests are being added to this international list (even though it is primarily a homegrown terrorist situation). I think the potential for confusion is too high with specific articles. I'm going to move the page back, and divide the article into domestic and international sections. -- cmh 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the terrorist acts staged by the illegal wing of the RCMP prior to its legalization as CSIS, i.e. mailbox bombings, pipe bombs, etc, committed by the Force in the name of the FLQ during the '60s?Skookum1 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorg

Ok. I've moved the page to the generic title again. I sorted the items into domestic and international events. Despite the edit comment, the revert point to this version is here. Then I decided that the decade-based subheadings were not the best way to subcategorize the list. Really, the international list can be quite naturally categorized by broad reasons for the attacks. This is the current top level version. At this point, the FLQ and other domestic terrorist incidents can be added. -- cmh 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How about...

How about the 2006 case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.80.79 (talk • contribs) .

There has been no terrorist attack in Canada in 2006. However, there is a see also link to some recent arrests. This link is ok for now as a pointer to the information available, but likely should go after it is no longer newsworthy. -- cmh 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedomite Doukhobours

I don't have the dates, but members of the Sons of Freedom faction of the Doukhobours were responsible for bombing powerlines in BC's Kootenay districts in the late 1950s or early 1960s; their motives were even more Luddite than the Squamish Five and maybe "terrorism" isn't quite the right word - terrorism is meant to sow fear; the Freedomites were trying to destroy the works of Mammon rather than pursue an ideology meant to overthrow the state through a campaign of fear. Still, they were treated as terrorists (a word not quite invented yet at the time) and indicted for (I think) sedition as well as the direct charges relating to the bombings. It can also be argued that their campaigns of arson and other property-destruction directed at fellow Doukhobours were also terrorist in nature, though communal in scope (such arsons were to remind those who strayed from the pure anabaptist path that their material possesions meant nothing); such arsons were also committed against their own property to protest against forced enrollment of Doukhobour children in government schools, and paying taxes and all the other trappings of material civilization/culture; these were also the motives behind the powerline bombings (there were plots to blow up one of the Columbia River Treaty dam projects, too; I think it was the Duncan Dam). The conspirators/culprits were interned at Kent Institution, then Agassiz Mountain Prison, and their followers established a huge tarpaper-shack camp outside the prison gates (which I remember visiting as my father had some reason to visit their leader, probably to do with BC Hydro business, which he was regional production superinetendant for).Skookum1 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A book on WAC Bennet and the history of BC also describes the Doukabours as having committed terrorist acts during that time period. NFW 29Jul06

Why include École Polytechnique shootings?

Is there a source for describing the 1989 École Polytechnique shootings as a "terrorist" attack? The article on Marc Lépine does not use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism". If this incident is included, why not include other hate crimes, such as incidents of gay-bashing or vandalism of synagogues and mosques? --Mathew5000 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but there's feminist sources that would have no problem describing the Ecol Polytechnique shootings as "terrorism" by a man against women. I don't have those cites, and am not interested in reading more man-bashing ("typical of men's abuses of women" and the like, i.e. about the shootings), but there's no doubt they exist. But I'm not sure they would validate including the "Second Valentine's Day Massacre" (as I remember this once being called, not because of the day it happened on but because of the annual memorial services on V-Day) as "terrorism".Skookum1 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Lépine says "Lépine left behind a three-page letter claiming feminists had ruined his life. It also contained a virtual hit list of nineteen high-profile Quebec women whom he apparently wanted to kill, and expressed his admiration of Denis Lortie, who had killed three Quebec government employees in 1984.". Also the fact that his was an anti-feminist attack is relevant. The article on Terrorism suggests (under Lone Wolf section) "A single individual commits an act of terrorism if the target is civilians and the purpose is to effect a political or ideological change. Such an individual may or may not identify himself with some group.". I think he's relevant given the low number of domestic terrorists. I do think some organized gay-bashing or anti-jew groups may also be relevant in some cases... I'd have to think more about that. -- cmh 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Myself I wasn't meaning that his anti-feminist agenda was an issue when I mentioned feminist accounts; I was referring simply to the language typical of those accounts, and as stated feminist theorists do consider this (and other attacks on women) as "gender terrorism". They never met my mean older sister, though ;-)Skookum1 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Having done some thinking about it, I still think Lépine is relevant. However, it may well be a weak example of terrorism — because there's nothing to prove that he was trying to make political points by killing innocents, we are left with the alternate explanation that his goal was simply to find random women to eliminate. I think his notes and yelling about feminists lends support to the terrorist view, and I'm sure sources can be found to support this. However, if others reach consensus that it's wrong that he's on the list I would be comfortable with its removal. -- cmh 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'lone wolf' terrorism and 'feminist' opinions on terrorism are just that - opinions. The definitions for terrorism and terrorist were defined long ago and, despite a variety of arguments over who is and is not a terrorist or a terrorist organization, the following rules apply; two or more persons form a non-government organization; development of a theological or political goal in opposition to the current ruling government; use of violent force or a threat to use violent force; and, acts of violence against indirect targets. Any acts with only one person are regarded as criminal acts. Regarding certain proponents of the feminist movement, their use of the term is politically motivated. Misuse of the term 'terrorism' for political purposes does not mean the rest of the world has to agree with their definition. NFW 29Jul06.

I removed Lépine from the list. This article is not the proper place to make the argument for "gender terrorism". (There is also no mention of "terrorism" on the Marc Lépine article).Drcwright 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assassinations are not terrorism

I'm tempted to bring this up at the Wikiproject:Terrorism discussions, but I think we do a disservice by listing assassinations as "terrorism". McGee's shooting on Sparks Street was certainly not terrorism, nor was the shooting of JFK...why we do ascribe the Khalistan assassination as "terrorism"? I'd favour porting off assassinations to a separate list. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Assassinations should be linked to terrorism. While the killing of an individual can be due to the murderer's anger about a specific issue or mental illness, the killing of a public proponent-- or even an innocent civilian, journalist or soldier on the sidewalk -- is considered an assassination because part of the purpose/outcome is to generate fear in the public or among supporters of a cause. Canuckle (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct. Terrorism and assassinations are categories of events that can overlap at times, but there are also plenty events that qualify in only one of the two categories. Terrorism is quite clearly defined as ideologically motivated violence (whether that ideology is political ideology, religious ideology, etc). Terrorism acts don't need to result in deaths to be classified as terrorism. Similarly, not every murder of a journalist, or innocent civilian on the sidewalk is terrorism. Mcrt007 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Environmental Terrorism?

Does sabotaging a pipeline really count as terrorism? The rest of these cases involve murders or attempts to cause murder for political purposes. Sabotaging a pipeline doesn't involved murdering or any attempts to murder. It also isn't for political purposes, per se. I'm not denying that it is a crime. I'm arguing that sabotage isn't terrorism. How are we defining "terrorism" in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.129.227 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

I've removed this section for now. It can be added back when and if it is declared to have been terrorism. For now there have been no official statements, and the media are not calling it terrorism. Meters (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify things. Individuals may have used the term or suggested that the shootings were terrorism (for example MP Jason Kenney's tweet, "Canada will not be terrorized or intimidated.") but that's not enough. As the Whitehouse spokesman said, "it was too early to determine if the attack was an act of terrorism." Meters (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And, there is no indication that this is Islamic terrorism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, the main article now supports calling it terrorism now (with good refs), but I still don't see anything that definitively says this is Islamic terrorism. The main article merely says "An ISIL Twitter account put out an alleged photo of Zehaf-Bibeau just after his name was released." There's a big difference between the main article saying that ISIL claims he's theirs, and this article saying that it was Islamic terrorism. It may turn out to be correct, but for now we have no WP:RS to back that up. Rewrite it or provide a good source, or the Islamic terrorism label is going to be removed. Meters (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage now support the "Islamist" label. Meters (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are anti-abortion attacks terrorism?

Would firebombing clinics and attacks on doctors to cause fear and discourage abortion count as terrorism? Below list of attacks (with sources) are from Abortion in Canada:

• In 1983, Henry Morgentaler was attacked by a man wielding garden shears; the attack was blocked by feminist activist Judy Rebick, who was standing nearby.
• In 1992, Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed and sustained severe damage. The event occurred at night, so no one was injured, although a nearby bookstore was damaged. Appointments were switched to another clinic in Toronto and no abortions were prevented.
• On November 8, 1994, Vancouver doctor Garson Romalis shot in the leg.
• On November 10, 1995, Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario shot in the elbow.
• On November 11, 1997 Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg shot in the shoulder.
• On July 11, 2000, Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.

Canuckle (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should this article include the lead sentence from Terrorism in the United States? :A common definition of terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change" as per encyclopedia britannica -[1] Canuckle (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the motivations of the attacker are ideological, those attacks are terrorism, indeed. Your July 11, 2000, article discusses several events concerning Dr Romalis: the 1st attack mentioned (which happened in July 2000) is not confirmed as an "anti-abortion" incident, by your source (if this incident later proved to be "anti-abortion" motivated, an additional or another source to back up the claim should be included). The incident from 1994 also mentioned in your article, however, is definitely political in nature (thus terrorism), e.g.: "In 1994, Dr Romalis was shot in a sniper attack linked to an anti-abortion activist - James Charles Kopp".Mcrt007 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Giant Mine Bombing

Feel like it needs to be added. 9 dead, killed by union activist trying to kill/terrorize scabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.223.82 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't ISIS be in the Banned terrorist organizations?

I would imagine ISIS to be in the list. But, I don't see it anywhere in there.--Hacker1 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terrorism in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110616182451/http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/EmergPreparedness/EdmontonDisasterTimetable.pdf to http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/EmergPreparedness/EdmontonDisasterTimetable.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Quebec City mosque shooting

I removed mention of this recent event [2] since we don't yet know what the shooters' motivation was and the cited source did not call it terrorism. Quite possibly this will warrant inclusion eventually, but it's too soon to know. Meters (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The incident has now been called terrorism by Canadian politicians, but the accused has been charged with multiple counts of first degree murder (and not terrorism). This could change, but it's much harder to prove terrorism, particularly with a "lone gunman" scenario. So, what's the inclusion criterion in general? We can't require a criminal charge or we couldn't label even obvious terrorism events as such unless the perpetrator(s) survived and were charged. Meters (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia consensus made on the article itself is that the attack was a mass shooting and not terrorism, so it shoul;d not be in this article. It is already covered in articles related to shootings, including "List of massacres in Canada".Spilia4 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

opposition to Quebec nationalism

I suggest changing the title of this section to "Canadian nationalism" or "Quebec federalism". When somebody like Richard Henry Bain declares to the media that "anglos are waking up", it isn't merely opposition to Quebec nationalism, it's an expression of Canadian nationalism or Quebec federalism. Anyone opposed to the change? 198.200.115.45 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed. We already have a section called "Quebec nationalism". "Quebec Federalism" would just be confusing, and "Canadian nationalism" is not what we are seeing. The events in this section are opposition to Quebec nationalism. Meters (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bain claiming that anglophones are waking up is not opposition to nationalism, it IS nationalism.198.200.115.45 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Added section on misogyny, restoring Marc Lepine

I see this was discussed in 2006. However, the two terrorist attacks that I added under the new section "Misogyny" fit wikipedia's Definitions of terrorism: It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives. It can be committed by governments, non-state actors, or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments. It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society. It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).

Previously there was discussion of whether lone-wolf attacks meet the definition of terrorism. From the brief summaries that I have included from other wikipedia articles and the above definition, the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerlis (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page which you link to, for Definitions of terrorism, states indeed that terrorism "is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives." However, this definition is not corroborated by the article to which "Definitions of terrorism" links, e.g.: "Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f" from Cornell Law. According to that article, in section "(d) Definitions" we have the following definition: "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

"Misogyny" is not terrorism according to current definitions.

The attack you have listed should actually be under "Anti-feminism" not "misogyny". Mcrt007 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree in two respects: i) We know that the victims shared an identity as women. We do not know that they shared a political identity as feminists; this would have been impossible for the terrorist to assess. This is an anti-woman attack, not an anti-feminist attack. ii) You're citing a link from Definitions of terrorism; if you think that article is inadequate, that should be changed. Also, citing an external link to U.S. legal code for a Canadian article, is not a strong argument. Tmerlis (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

An attack on individuals sharing some random identities is not necessarily terrorism. Politically motivated attacks (e.g.: where the attacker is motivated by his political views) usually are classified as terrorism. In this case, the attacker was politically motivated as I mentioned before. Also, and more importantly, the Wikipedia page detailing the incident classifies the attack as antifeminism already (see its "motive" section and "Search for a rationale" paragraphs, etc for more details and links to sources classifying the attack as "antifeminism").