Haras Rafiq
Aug 7, 2024
Recent terrorism conviction of Edmonton gas station worker and arrest of Ontario father-son pair remind us that more needs to be done
Canada’s systemic reluctance to tackle extremist ideology is coming home to roost. Two weeks ago, Edmonton gas station employee Khaled Hussein was convicted on multiple charges under Britain’s Terrorism Act alongside radical British preacher Anjem Choudary. Last week, the RCMP announced the arrest of a father and son, Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi and Mostafa Eldidi in Richmond Hill, Ont. on charges that include conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit or at the direction of ISIS.
As a British Muslim counter-extremism expert, former advisor to Europol, numerous United Kingdom and United States governments and a current board member of Secure Canada, I am in a unique position to reflect on Canada’s evolving role in global counter-terrorism efforts. These recent events, and especially Choudary’s long career as an international extremist recruiter for terrorist organizations, serve as a poignant reminder of the transnational nature of extremism, the value of international cooperation and the urgent need to take this threat seriously.
Choudary’s conviction and life sentence, while welcome, come too late. Having locked horns with him numerous times over the years, I can attest to the fact that his toxic ideology has been poisoning minds and radicalizing vulnerable individuals for decades.
The harsh reality is that neither the U.K. nor Canada is winning the battle against extremism and terrorism, with hateful vitriol and intimidation tactics on full display in our streets, our public institutions and classrooms. Our efforts, while well-intentioned, have been marred by bureaucratic inertia, political correctness and a failure to address the root causes of radicalization.
For years, Choudary exploited the very freedoms and legal protections that define our democratic societies to spread his message of hate. He walked a fine line, carefully avoiding explicit calls to violence while inspiring countless individuals to embrace extremist ideologies. Our legal systems, designed to protect freedom of speech, became unwitting accomplices to his agenda. Choudary was on the radar of British law enforcement for years and even spent some time in prison, but always found ways to skirt law enforcement by creating dozens of new entities to continue his global indoctrination project, a common tactic for extremist recruiters.
In the U.K., we’ve seen the devastating consequences of extremism firsthand — from the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 to the murder of Lee Rigby, an off-duty soldier, in 2013, and beyond. Each tragedy has been followed by soul-searching and promises of reform, yet the fundamental issues remain unaddressed.
Canada, while spared the scale of attacks seen in the U.K., is not immune to these threats. The 2014 attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and on Parliament Hill should have been a wake-up call. Instead, the response has been tepid, characterized by half-measures and a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about radicalization and extremist ideologies within our communities.
Hussein, under Choudary’s tutelage, created digital content that glorified terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida for a variety of platforms and extremist publications. He had been on the RCMP’s radar since 2019, but was only arrested when he travelled to London to meet with Choudary. When asked by the press why he needed to be arrested in the U.K., an RCMP assistant commissioner stated that travel to Britain presented an opportunity for him to be charged under the U.K.’s terrorism legislation. This raises questions about whether Canada’s legislative framework needs to be strengthened.
Canada and the U.K. suffer from similar shortcomings in their counterterrorism approaches. Both are afflicted by chronic underinvestment and lack of systemic coordination on matters of national security, which contributes to inertia and inter-agency rivalries and hampers effective action — even when actionable intelligence is there.
Each is hindered by a slow federal terror listing process, which cannot keep up with the proliferation of terrorist groups, domestically and internationally. Both work reactively to stop specific plots, rather than address and counter the ideologies that fuel them. This has allowed extremist ideas to spread, often unchallenged, in both physical and digital spaces.
Diffused and misguided “soft” approaches to deradicalization are used in both countries. While community engagement is crucial, many of our counter-extremism and “deradicalization” programmes have proven ineffective because they focus disproportionately on social-emotional and economic factors, neglecting the ideological orientation that pushes individuals towards a certain kind of extremism. We need to be willing to have hard conversations and challenge extremist narratives head-on. It appears particularly difficult for Canadian and British governments and law enforcement to name Islamism specifically. (I am Muslim myself and it is essential to differentiate between Islam and Islamism.)
British and Canadian laws often struggle to deal with the sophisticated and nuanced tactics of modern extremists. The Choudary case demonstrates how individuals can promote terrorist ideologies, constantly creating new organizations to evade prosecution for years.
Despite efforts, both countries are losing the online war against extremism. Platforms continue to be exploited for radicalization, and our tendency to lean on influencers, PR specialists, psychologists and sociologists who do not understand the ideological drivers of extremism, has failed to move the needle.
Finally, both the U.K. and Canada lack political leadership on speech and conduct that promote violence, and their misguided fears of appearing intolerant have even led to a disinclination to work with Muslim groups and individuals willing to name the prevalence of extremist ideologies within our own communities.
The path forward requires a fundamental reassessment of our strategies. We need to be honest about the sources of extremist threats, both ideological and financial, from state and non-state actors. We must overhaul our legal frameworks to address modern extremist tactics without compromising our fundamental values, and invest heavily in education and counter-narrative programmes that inoculate vulnerable individuals against extremism.
The Eldidi arrests in Richmond Hill showcase the importance of strengthening the policies that concern the return to Canada of those who had travelled abroad to join and fight alongside terrorist groups, like ISIS. Secure Canada (formerly C-CAT) and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published a paper on this very topic. Our elected officials would be wise to heed their legislative recommendations.
We also need to foster genuine partnerships and empower communities that have a shared commitment to combating extremism and develop more sophisticated approaches to tackling online radicalization, including holding tech companies accountable.
The convictions of Choudary and Hussein in the U.K. and the recent terror arrests of the Eldidis in Canada offer an opportunity for reflection and recalibration. They ’re a stark reminder of the work that lies ahead. As someone who has been on the frontlines of this battle for over two decades, I am certain that we will continue to fall short in safeguarding our societies against the scourge of extremism — unless we radically rethink our approach.
The time for complacency and polite half-measures is long past. We need decisive action, courageous leadership and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Only then can we hope to turn the tide in this crucial fight