Having polar opposite views or smaller disagreements on any subject matter, including terrorism, is acceptable: ad hominem slander is not.
The field of terrorism has received an unprecedented amount of attention in the post 9/11 period. What was once a very small niche subject matter has attracted a lot of interest since that fateful day. This has been both a good and a bad development.
On the good side of the ledger whenever more people look at a particular issue we benefit from a diversity of opinion. Different disciplines – history, political science, psychology, religious studies, etc. – have all made important contributions to our collective knowledge. In addition, more professionals in security intelligence and law enforcement have become very knowledgeable on this topic.
On the other hand this explosion in the numbers of commentators and scholars has also led to an inconsistent result. There are a great number of very good individuals and some not so good ones. To say that the discipline is inconsistent and still suffering from growing pains is an understatement.
On the other hand this explosion in the numbers of commentators and scholars has also led to an inconsistent result. There are a great number of very good individuals and some not so good ones.
Furthermore there is a major rift between two elements when it comes to terrorism: academics and practitioners, those who toil in the aforementioned security intelligence and law enforcement fields. It is unfair – and untrue – to maintain that the two never get along, but it is also accurate to say that there are fundamental differences of opinion when it comes to who knows more about terrorism and whose views should hold more weight.
My experiences do count for something
As those of you who follow me know I fall squarely in the practitioner camp, based on my 32 years in Canadian intelligence, including 15 working counter terrorism at CSIS. I do feel that my experiences do count for something and I have actually translated those into a post-spy career as an author, lecturer, blogger, podcaster and media personality. But while I am not an academic I do move in those circles and count many friends and acquaintances among denizens of the ivory tower.
I have suffered the slings and arrows of many for my views and positions and not just from academics. I am, however, a big boy and can argue back when the opposition is fact-based. And yet, attempts to challenge my specialised knowledge through ad hominem attacks are quite another thing.
A friend of mine is going through something similar
Well, it turns out a friend of mine is going through something similar. Mubin Shaikh, a Canadian hero, has had his very livelihood challenged by Dr. Stephanie Carvin of Carleton University. Mr. Shaikh had been a CSIS source operating for some time prior to the ‘Toronto 18’ case when he became an RCMP police agent and his his tireless work helped save the lives of countless Canadians. He deserves our praise, not our opprobrium. In a way he is like me, a practitioner, just a different kind of one.
Here is what Dr. Carvin wrote about Mubin on Twitter:
This is unacceptable. Dr. Carvin has incorrectly labelled Mr. Shaikh as a know-nothing and dismissed his service to the people of Canada. Furthermore, as Mr. Shaikh continues to travel around the world lecturing on Islamist terrorism, a subject he is very well versed in despite Dr. Carvin’s tweet, this kind of attack from a university professor could damage his ongoing professional engagements.
‘Nothing but a blogger’
At a bare minimum Dr. Carvin needs to retract this tweet and make a public apology to Mr. Shaikh. In addition, Dr. Carvin needs to think carefully of the image she wants to portray both for herself and her institution. For the record, she also attacked me recently, calling me ‘nothing but a blogger’ on Twitter in response to something I wrote with which she disagreed.
She also attacked me recently, calling me ‘nothing but a blogger’ on Twitter in response to something I wrote with which she disagreed.
We can have differences of opinion. We can argue – passionately – to defend our views. We can attack others’ facts and their interpretation of those facts. But we cannot lower ourselves to personal besmirchment, slander and character assassination. THAT is unacceptable.
Dr. Carvin must do the right thing here. I, and I imagine Mr. Shaikh, keenly await her response.
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.
