Framing Terrorists in Canada: A Comparative Analysis of Two Shootings

Abstract

IntroductionMuch academic ink has been spent on trying to construct a comprehensive definition of terrorism. Presumably this effort has been expended in hopes that the definition will allow for informed, concise debate that limits undesirable influences (xenophobia, racism, etc.). Unfortunately, the events of September 11, 2001 pulled the definition exercise into the public and political realms before any universal definition was accomplished. Academically though this exercise has increased doubt about the veracity of the threat of terrorism. Rather academics have warned about over-reaction and over-reach of political and legal use of the term terrorism. Critics felt that legally defining terrorism would not only be difficult, it could prove dangerous due to the subjective nature of the term. Consequently when, in 2002 the Canadian government passed the Anti-Terrorism Act (2001) there was a great deal of concern as to how the definition of terrorism would be operationalised not only by legal practitioners but by media and political actors.This article will address two important questions for Canadian terrorism studies. Firstly, how do Canadian media operationalise the label of terrorism? An analysis of the media framing employed to cover two violent Canadian events (the Moncton shootings and the Ottawa Shootings) will be used to address this. Secondly, did the legislated definition of terrorism influence the operationalisation of the label of terrorism in Canadian media? To set the stage for this research, Canada's legislated definition of terrorism is explored to clarify its parameters.Defining Canadian TerrorismFor the first time in Canadian legislative history, the ATA (2001) defined terrorism. The purpose of this exercise was to set terrorism offences apart from regular criminal justice offences. Accordingly offences that fulfill the criteria set out as 'terrorist activity' in the ATA (2001) will be punished to a greater degree than similar offences not considered under the ATA (2001). Essentially, violent acts of terrorism will receive more punitive sentences than other similar or even seemingly identical offences. For instance a thrillseeking gunman who attacks a public space would face more lenient treatment than a gunman that falls under the ATAs criteria of terrorist activity as listed below:Section 83.01(i) of the ATA (2001) defined terrorist activity as committed:(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of 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, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and(ii) that intentionally(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,(B) endangers a person's life,(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law. …