XPost: can.politics, ott.general   
   From: Panca@nyet.ca   
      
   CBC News Posted: Oct 30, 2014   
      
   Ottawa attack: Was Michael Zehaf-Bibeau's attack a terrorist act   
      
   Mulcair calls Ottawa gunman's attack a 'criminal act'   
      
   NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has suggested that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, had   
   committed a 'criminal act' and that, based on the shooter's past, there wasn't   
   enough evidence to describe his actions as terrorism.   
      
      
   NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's comments that the deadly actions taken by Michael   
   Zehaf-Bibeau should not be characterized as terrorism has sparked a debate   
   among his political rivals and highlighted a controversy often ignited when   
   using such terms.   
      
   "We cannot look at an act of violence on its own and immediately declare it is   
   terrorism or not, we have to take into account context — motivation and   
   intent,   
   victim, perpetrator, etc," said James Forest, professor and director of the   
   graduate program in security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.   
   "And as with many things in life, different aspects of context will undoubtedly   
   be interpreted differently by different people."   
      
   For his part, Mulcair suggested Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, had committed a "criminal   
   act" and that based on the shooter's past, there wasn't enough evidence to   
   describe his actions as terrorism.   
      
   "When you look at the history of the individual, attempts to get help, even to   
   be in prison to get help if that turns out to be the case, I think that we're   
   not in the presence of a terrorist act in the sense that we would understand   
   it," Mulcair said.   
      
   The remarks were immediately seized upon by Conservative MPs, including Prime   
   Minister Stephen Harper, who said there was "no contradiction in individuals   
   who may have a series of personal financial and mental difficulties, and also   
   be engaged in terrorist jihadist activities."   
      
   Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau agreed and referenced the RCMP, who have said   
   Zehaf-Bibeau's actions were motivated by political ideology.  A source familiar   
   with the investigation has told CBC News that a video recovered by the RCMP   
   appears to show Zehaf-Bibeau making specific reference to Canada's foreign   
   policy as motivation for his actions and that he praises Allah in the   
   recording.   
      
   But is this an incidental factor, as Mulcair suggested, and is the real root of   
   Zehaf-Bibeau's motivation his major dependency and mental health issues?   
      
   Lorne Dawson, a University of Waterloo sociology professor and co-director of   
   the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, says no.   
   Lashed out in 'politically significant way'   
      
   While acknowledging  Zehaf-Bibeau's drug and mental health issues, Dawson   
   pointed out that he also decided to lash out in a "very politically significant   
   way — at least symbolically."   
      
   "It may be wise in the end to interpret him as yet another victim of jihadi   
   terrorist groups, since they are purposefully seeking to exploit the   
   vulnerabilities of people like him. But his actions constitute terrorism in   
   their nature and their consequences, whether he fully understood that or not."   
      
   Forest agreed that Zehaf-Bibeau's personal issues don't mitigate whether he   
   committed a terrorist act.   
      
   "When an individual commits a non-terrorist act of homicide, do we call it   
   something other than murder if it turns out he/she also had major drug issues,   
   mental health issues, etc. at the time of their crime?"   
      
   "The fact that there was a political ideology motivating the attack separates   
   it from other kinds of murderous violence that stem from homicidal lunacy,   
   passion, profit or personal revenge," Forest said.   
      
   Whatever mental distress Zehaf-Bibeau was suffering, it doesn't exclude the   
   reality of what he did and what he specifically attacked, said Michael Zekulin,   
   a political science professor who studies terrorism and radicalization at the   
   University of Calgary.   
      
      
   Justin Bourque   
      
   Justin Bourque, 24, of Moncton, could be facing three consecutive life   
   sentences, with no chance of parole for 75 years for the fatal shooting of   
   three RCMP officers. Experts don't agree on whether his actions should be   
   considered terrorist acts. ​   
      
   "This is a political statement, a symbolic statement. If he's simply mentally   
   distressed and wants to kill people, he could have killed people at the shelter   
   he was staying at, he could have gone to a mall, he could have shot people in   
   the street. He specifically went to and targeted a member of the Canadian   
   military and then he moved specifically to the institutions of government."   
      
      
   What about Bourque?   
      
   Under Canada's Criminal Code, terrorism is defined as a violent act committed   
   "in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause"   
   with the intention of  "intimidating the public, or a segment of the public,   
   with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a   
   person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to   
   refrain from doing any act."   
      
   How one defines an "ideological purpose," however, and whether other acts   
   should also be considered terrorism are often debatable.   
      
   For example, there's the case of Justin Bourque, who fatally gunned down three   
   RCMP officers in Moncton, N.B. earlier this year. He was charged with   
   first-degree murder, but no terrorism-related offences, even though his   
   sentencing hearing heard that he was trying to start a rebellion against what   
   he considered to be an oppressive corrupt government that he insisted was   
   squelching the freedom of most Canadians.   
      
   Zekulin acknowledged that Bourque's case is a grey area, and that different   
   experts would split on how to classify his actions.   
      
   "But the argument here is, where is the greater political statement? With him   
   at this this point, it is less clear or less cut and dry as it is with both   
   Mr.[Martin] Couture-Rouleau or Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau."   
      
   "I would still look at [Bourque's case] more as the personal [motivation] of 'I   
   hate the police, I hate government.' It's not an effort to impact or effect   
   large-scale political change."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)