Saturday, April 27 ~
Attack on Toronto urban pedestrians challenges ‘terrorism’ definition, highlights misogyny
WEST SHORE VOICE NEWS EDITORIAL by Mary P Brooke
Of the persons hit, 10 died and 14 were taken to hospital with injuries. Many more bystanders, witnesses and first responders are also left with the emotional impact of the event, as well as families, friends and co-workers of the victims.
In total now, police have charged the 25-year-old accused with 10 counts of first degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder (two more people directly impacted in the attack did not go to hospital with injuries). Of the deceased, eight were women.
The rented van that was used by the accused to run down people by driving down the wide pedestrian sidewalk for a distance of over 2 km was clearly in fact a weapon. Intentionally instilling fear in people is by any dictionary ‘to terrorize’. But in our day and age of political correctness and the implications of terrorism as an action described in criminal law, the Canadian government has so far said this is not officially terrorism of national concern, i.e. cannot be linked to a known terrorist group such as ISIS, or cannot be associated with intent by another nation or group of nations. But under the Criminal Code (Section 83.01) it sure seems to fit the definition of terrorism [see footnote].
Lawyers and pundits will debate it, but the fact remains that the federal government seems to want to downplay the terrorizing intention of this act (see mainstream media for reports on the perpetrator’s inspiration from the Incel movement) and seemingly turn an official blind eye to the danger that a vehicle in the wrong hands (more accurately, in the wrong mind) is a weapon. No one wants social chaos.
By attempting to assuage the worries of Canadians by officially declaring this incident as not being terrorism, might be upheld as technically correct in terms of present criminal law. But no doubt there is a societal need to examine the many ways that disenfranchised members of society come up with to take out their frustrations on innocent victims.
What seems to be coming to light is the many broader forms that a source of terrorism can arise from. In this case, the perpetrator is thought to be supportive of a misogyny-informed movement that takes out their frustrations on women as their target.
In this particular case, the anti-woman factor echoes the Montreal Massacre of 1989 in which the killer declared women as the source of his troubles and openly murdered 14 women college students at random based on gender.
Violence against women is nothing new. It is still seen in many cultures around the world and is likely as old as humanity itself (except for some bright moments in history such as the range of options and levels of power apparently available to women among the Celts and some Viking tribes, to name two). Sorting out gender issues and evolving as a society are the challenges. Public education for everyone is essential. Supportive underpinnings for women and families — including child care and equal pay for equal work — will go a long way toward levelling out the playing field. With economic self-determination there is elimination of absolute dependence on the patriarchy, and provides choices. There are so many other insidious ways that women are oppressed in home, workplace and society that the list is long. Oppression is not just societally set up as by men toward women, but also women toward women. [This is an overview, not targeted at individuals.]
Society delivers a wide range of constraints and demands on people through socioeconomic systems and cultural expectations. If some adults (of whatever gender expression) become so frustrated that they choose to attack others, it’s time to re-examine the system.
Women must not for a moment let their guard down; if we do, it’s kind of like letting weeds regrow in the garden. In Canada, women gained the right to vote only 100 years ago, contraception has only been somewhat reliable for about 50 years, and abortion rights are relatively new in law and pretty much brand new pharmaceutically. Good news — in just the last 10 years or so there seems to be a bursting at the seams that has recently evolved a desire for gender-balanced governance. A good start, when placements are based on qualification.
Women generally feel more empowered in this 21st century (for some women this is very new and it has unleashed a torrent of pent up response, e.g. the MeToo movement). However, the Toronto attack did highlight that what is old arises new again (perpetrator only 25 years old). It’s particularly worrisome to see young men (presumably raised in an enlightened era) also finding among themselves a woman-hating substrata. This is not wholly the fault of individual men, but stems largely from a system that in varying degrees oppresses anyone who somehow doesn’t manage to scramble to the top of the heap.
Footnote
Definition of Terrorism in Canadian Law
In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating 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.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems.”
***
Back to Editorials Main Page
[as first published in the April 27, 2018 print/PDF issue of West Shore Voice News]