There is no such thing as zero-risk: we need to have systems in place to measure danger as best we can.
This piece appeared on The Hill Times on February 17, 2020
THE HILL TIMES — If you have been following the news out of the UK lately you will know that nation has witnessed two recent terrorist attacks, both committed by individuals who served time for terrorist offences, both of whom were released early based on statutory practices.
On February 2 Sudesh Amman stabbed two people in south London before he was shot dead by police. He was under surveillance after having been freed on strict conditions after having served less than half his sentence on terrorism offences. Last November 29 Usman Khan stabbed and killed two people on London Bridge before he too was shot dead by police. Similarly, he had been released on licence before his sentence for planning to bomb the London Stock Exchange had been completed.
The U.K. public is in an uproar and the Boris Johnson government is rushing through legislation to amend early release for terrorists
In both cases judges indicated that the men were dangerous: it is likely for this reason that they were given freedom but still monitored. Nevertheless, released they were and now two people are dead and many more injured. Not surprisingly, the UK public is in an uproar and the Boris Johnson government is rushing through legislation to amend early release for terrorists.
Will it soon be Canada’s turn?
Carlos Larmond, an Ottawa terrorist jailed in 2016 for attempting to leave Canada to fight for ISIS, has been quietly released from prison and is now living in a halfway house in Calgary. His exit from prison was in keeping with statutory release laws that mandate federal offenders to be freed after having served two-thirds of their sentence. Mr. Larmond has to abide by curfew and other conditions.
What danger does Mr. Larmond pose to the Canadian public? Here is what court and prison officials have said about him:
- In 2019, his classification was changed to medium-security offender with a high risk to public safety.
- According to a member of the parole board, he had “not shown significant indications of change since incarceration”, had attempted to radicalize others, and threatened authority figures
- While his violent history was limited, he displayed a “significant commitment” to his cause and continued to engage in those beliefs while incarcerated
- The parole board member described Larmond’s potential harm to others and national security as exceptional.
Note that these comments were made in November 2019, i.e. three months ago. And now Mr. Larmond is living in a halfway house. In Calgary, where we dealt with a critical mass of radicalised Islamist extremists in the 2000s, many of whom left Canada to fight for ISIS and other terrorist groups.
What gives? Are Canadians ok with this?
In fairness it must be specified that Mr. Larmond’s release is consistent with federal laws in this regard. It must also be emphasised that to date no convicted terrorism offender – with one exception (Ali Dirie of the Toronto 18) – has gone on to commit another terrorism offence after having served his sentence. It is thus inaccurate to say that the threat of violence is always high.
Still, in light of the comments made by officials we entrust to gauge risk in the case of Mr. Larmond, is this a good idea? What if he does seek to satisfy his “significant commitment” to a terrorist group? What if he does kill or wound a member of the public? What then?
I hope that those responsible for making decisions in this regard have the training and understanding of terrorism and the terrorist mindset to make the right call.
If the law of averages means anything, an individual who had been imprisoned on terrorism offences and who had been let out will kill someone one day in this country. And when that day occurs get ready for mobs with pitchforks in the streets demanding that terrorists NEVER see the light of day. Despite the fact that the risk is indeed low.
I hope that those responsible for making decisions in this regard have the training and understanding of terrorism and the terrorist mindset to make the right call (NB I used to provide training along those lines when I was at CSIS). I am sure they are doing the best they can. Unfortunately, no one wants to hear that ‘procedures were followed’ in the aftermath of a murder.
Phil Gurski is a former strategic terrorism analyst at CSIS. He is currently the Director of the Security Program at the University of Ottawa
When Religion Kills: How Extremists Justify Violence Through Faith (2019)
Christian fundamentalists. Hindu nationalists. Islamic jihadists. Buddhist militants. Jewish extremists. Members of these and other religious groups have committed horrific acts of terrorist violence in recent decades. Phil Gurski explores violent extremism across a broad range of the world’s major religions.
