(CRM4) Policing white supremacy and misogyny as terrorism?

The Canadian government recently expanded the official definition of terrorism to include violence motivated by white supremacy and misogyny, among other things. These ideologies were grouped together as “right wing extremism” and as an important terrorism threat in Canada. According to the Government of Canada right wing extremism “is traditionally driven by hatred and fear, and includes a range of individuals, groups, often in online communities, that back a wide range of issues and grievances, including, but not limited to: anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiment, advocacy of white nationalism and racial separation, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anti-immigration, male supremacy (misogyny) and homophobia.” In the face of longstanding criticisms that the Canadian security apparatus does not take the threat of right-wing extremist violence seriously, these steps have been lauded for starting to shift the anti-terrorism focus away from racialized communities. Nonetheless, the extension of Canada’s security apparatus in the name of protecting vulnerable, marginalized, racialized communities from right-wing extremism requires critical reflection, particularly given that fraught history of Canada’s policing and security agencies perpetuating violence toward these communities. Tags: Criminology, Policing

Organizers: Kris Millett, Concordia University, Amy Swiffen, Concordia University; Chair: Kris Millett, Concordia University

Presentations

Karmvir Padda, University of Waterloo

The Ripple of Radical Justifications: How Extremist Manifestos Inspire and Replicate Violence

In recent years, the alarming rise in extremist violence across the globe has been underscored by tragic events such as the May 2022 Buffalo, United States, shooting, and the October 2022 Bratislava, Slovakia shooting. These incidents, though occurring in vastly different parts of the world, share a critical commonality – the use of manifestos by the perpetrators as a tool to articulate their twisted ideologies and justify their actions. Manifestos, with their intricate and ideologically dense content, offer invaluable insights into the motivations, ideologies, and justifications of extremists (Ebner et al., 2022; Kaldor, 2021; Kupper and Meloy, 2021; Siggery et al., 2023). They not only reflect the mindset of their authors but also serve as catalysts and inspiration for future acts of extremism. These documents, often overlooked in the broader discourse on terrorism, are instrumental in understanding the radicalization process and the pathways to violent extremism. This paper seeks to delve into the depths of these manifestos, offering an incisive look into the minds of extremists and the pernicious role these documents play in perpetuating cycles of violence. This study adopts a comprehensive qualitative comparative and thematic analysis to scrutinize these manifestos. By dissecting the specific language and concepts used, the paper aims to reveal how these texts justify violence and inspire others to similar acts of extremism. Central to this analysis is the application of C. Wright Mills vocabulary of motive, which provides a framework for understanding the cultural and ideological narratives woven into these documents. Additionally, the research draws on the insights of Corner and Gill (2015), who highlight the critical role of personal grievances, humiliation, and perceived threats in shaping extremist identities and justifications for violence. The study also delves into cognitive biases that encourage the selective adoption of extremist beliefs, solidifying radical ideologies. It particularly focuses on a blend of resentment, envy, and powerlessness, which is crucial in justifying violent extremism (Kaldor, 2021). In analyzing the manifestos from the Buffalo and Bratislava incidents, the paper uncovers significant parallels in content, style, and ideological influences. For instance, the manifesto associated with the Buffalo shooting, authored by Payton S. Gendron, reportedly plagiarized about 57 percent of its content from earlier extremist sources, including the Christchurch shooters manifesto. This pattern of ideological borrowing and adaptation is further exemplified in the Bratislava shooting, where 19-year-old Juraj Krajciks 65-page manifesto, titled “A Call to Arms”, echoed themes and styles from previous far-right extremist writings. This investigation goes beyond mere content analysis to explore how ideologies within these manifestos are strategically framed and presented to resonate with potential followers. Utilizing the theoretical frameworks of Goffman (1974) and Benford and Snow (2000), the study examines the communicative strategies employed in these documents, such as the use of question-and-answer formats and accelerationist themes. These elements are indicative of a broader pattern in extremist literature, highlighting the sophistication and strategic thinking behind these manifestos. In conclusion, the analysis of the manifestos from the Buffalo and Bratislava shootings demonstrates the pervasive influence of extremist ideologies across geographic boundaries, accelerated by the internet. This global interconnectivity of extremist narratives highlights the importance of Canadas expanded definition of terrorism, which now includes ideologies such as white supremacy and misogyny. As these ideologies increasingly transcend physical borders through digital means, Canadas approach to counter-terrorism must adapt to this evolving landscape. Recognizing the transnational nature of extremist threats and the role of online platforms in their propagation is crucial for Canada to develop effective, globally-aware counter-terrorism strategies, aligning with the countrys evolving policies and emphasizing the need for an inclusive, collaborative effort to address the complexities of modern extremism.

Sophie Marois, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto

White terror on trial: Courtroom ethnography of the London truck attack

This presentation is based on a courtroom ethnography of the trial for the 2021 London truck attack, in which a self-proclaimed white nationalist murdered three generations of a Muslim family while they were out for an evening walk in their southwestern Ontario neighbourhood. The trial for the attack began in September 2023 and lasted nearly 12 weeks, followed by sentencing hearings in January and February 2024. At the end of these lengthy and often harrowing proceedings, the Superior Court judge ruled that the Crown had persuasively demonstrated the murders and attempted murder of the sole survivor constituted terrorist activity insofar as they were “religiously, politically and/or ideologically motivated” and intended “to intimidate a portion of the public with regard for its security.” The move to prosecute—and sentence—this attack as terrorism is particularly significant in a context where white supremacy and far-right terror have been largely absent from a Canadian counterterrorism agenda that has disproportionately surveilled and targeted Muslims. For loved ones of the victims, “the terrorism designation acknowledges the hate that fuelled the fire, the ugliness that took the lives of Talat, Salman, Madiha and Yumnah.” “But this hate didn’t exist in a vacuum,” they stress, calling for a broader dismantling of the racial and colonial fault lines that continue to run deep within Canadian society. Drawing on the months of fieldwork I conducted at the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor (i.e., where the jury trial took place) and London (i.e., where the sentencing hearings took place), I focus on the courtroom as a key site where definitions of terrorist activity and extremist ideology are deployed, negotiated, and (re)articulated. How do the liberal institutions of a white settler society, cloaked in the veneer of multiculturalism, respond to white nationalist violence against Muslims? How is this violence rendered intelligible as terrorism (or not) within a Canadian courtroom? I explore these questions by paying particular attention to prosecutorial and defence strategies, the role of expert witnesses, rulings on the admissibility of evidence, and victim impact statements. In doing so, I seek to underscore the affective and symbolic weight, oft-expressed in court, of the terrorism label for victims’ and their loved ones’ sense of justice, while also interrogating how the Canadian legal apparatus positions itself as responding to hate and white supremacy through the framework of counterterrorism.

Mari Soberal, York University

A "Love" Letter to the U.S.

This paper presentation attempts to understand and share the complications of citizenship and belonging while straddling national borders. To have citizenship is to belong, but belonging in the age of political extremism is far more complicated (Bellamy, 2008) (Clarkson, 2014). In Marcela Mendoza's article "Belonging and Citizenship in Uncertain Times" they describe the strength of commitment and loyalty to the United States values and history. This commitment is both historical and present. Therefore, being part of a nation-state requires the people to trust/believe in The nation's history and traditions; if citizens fail to pass down public institutions to their descendants, they can be blamed for harming the nation's interests. While there is no shortage of legal, sociological, and historical resources on what it means to be a U.S. citizen, there is less information on what it means when you no longer trust in a nation's history and traditions. Using autoethnographical reflections, this essay attempts to find the roots of the popular concept of the American dream as a recurring symbol of dangerous nationalism and misguidance of American identity in the United States today. The American Dream is a concept that has been a central element of the United States cultural and societal identity and represents a significant amount of belonging in a common understanding of being American. Although the concept of the American dream varies between individuals, most believe that the American dream represents the belief that every individual, regardless of their background, social class, or status has the opportunity to achieve success and prosperity in the United States. But this "bootstrapper" understanding of American history and success is not without contention within the United States and global context. Some scholars maintain that the American Dream is an achievable reality for all to embark on, while others contend that social and economic inequalities and stark inequities make it difficult, if not impossible, for everyone to access such opportunities and bring their American dream to fruition (Cullen, 2003). The actual reaLization of the American dream can vary widely among individuals, which reflects the stark disparity between different cultural and economic situations between individuals in the United States. Despite the paradox of uncertainty and promise of this dream, it remains an important fixture in American life. This essay will not argue to remove this fixture but questions the strength of a dream. The idealism of this dream and the juxtaposition of political extremism and violence in the United States paints a very bleak picture of times to come, but a very important time to understand how history is made. As far-right extremism grows globally and domestically (Jones, 2018), (Worth, 2019); it has become increasingly important to understand and be accountable to understanding national histories and their role in continuing colonial narratives. While right-wing ideology and groups are not new in the US and more globally, the growth in immigration, change and migration within the European Union, and the mainstreaming of far-right ideas from popular politicians have emboldened and normalized far-right and extremist groups. Despite these horrifying realities, the strength of the dream remains constant in the American psyche.

Kris Millett, Concordia University; Amy Swiffen, Concordia University

Dividing Lines: The Canadian Legal System's Treatment of Right-Wing Extremism as Terrorism

This paper examines the Canadian government's recent expansion of the terrorism definition to include violence driven by white supremacy and misogyny, categorizing these ideologies under "right-wing extremism." The move, hailed by some for shifting the anti-terrorism focus away from racialized communities, particularly Muslims, has sparked a debate on its efficacy and implications. Drawing on ethnographic research, this paper examines perspectives from racialized people who have been solicited by the state to cooperate in anti-terror efforts against the far-right. The complex and ambivalent terms of enrollment is highlighted by the oft-repeated phrase “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. The phrase joins a dilemma of involvement with a sense of obligation to participate constructively in a field that continues to disproportionately target racialized communities. Our paper also draws on Walter Benjamin's theoretical framework to explore the dialectical relationship between law and violence, illustrating how the legal categorization of certain forms of violence as "terrorism" simultaneously sanctions and unsanctions white supremacist and misogynist violence within the legal system. This paper argues that the legal system's division of violence into sanctioned and unsanctioned forms, rather than its exclusion, reflects a deeper entanglement of law with the violence it seeks to regulate, challenging the effectiveness of current anti-terrorism strategies in addressing the structural violence embedded within the legal order.