Canadian courts have an unfortunate tendency to not take terrorism seriously and treat it appropriately. How can we change this?
Author: Phil Gurski
Phil Gurski is the President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting Ltd. Phil is a 32-year veteran of CSE and CSIS and the author of six books on terrorism.
Why is it that a series of Canadian governments is incapable to take what their intelligence agencies tell them about national security threats?
If arson is committed for political purposes does that not make it an act of terrorism? Not in Canada it seems!
Canadian intelligence and journalists have warned that China is engaged in influence peddling – and worse – for decades. So what is the government doing about it?
Looking back at a terrorist plot 15 years later only to force it through the filter of ‘racism’ is just plain wrong and unhelpful.
Canada appoints an Islamophobia ‘czar’, convinced that it is all too ‘prevalent’. But who are the real Islamophobes? Spoiler alert: not who you may think.
What role should our courts play in counter terrorism? Are there court cases in which there are frivolous accusations as to who is behind terrorism?
Journalists reporting from zones where terrorism is rampant are an important source of information: a conversation with a BBC reporter.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say. Does this describe the UK’s Prevent counter terrorism programme?
You would think that doing something to combat terrorism but only creates more terrorism would make you stop doing that, right? Tell China.