Maybe our definition of terrorism needs to be updated

Does Canada need a new, broader definition of terrorism? If it does turn out that the man who killed 10 and injured 14 on a busy Toronto street was driven by some warped violently misogynistic agenda, the answer could be yes.

To be clear, it’s too early to say with any certainty that is what motivated Alek Minassian, who is accused of murder and attempted murder, a rented white van being his weapon of choice. But increasingly, it appears his membership in a creepy group calling themselves “Incels” could have played a role.

Incels, in the unlikely event that you haven’t heard already, are people who identify themselves as involuntarily celibate. According to their view, they are victims. Victims of women (Incels call them Stacys) who aren’t willing to help them be not celibate. Victims of men (called Chads), who are having better luck with all the women. And victims of society in general, which promotes and embraces Chads and Stacys, leaving undesirable Incels to commiserate among themselves.

On the surface, this sounds more funny than threatening. But there’s nothing funny about misogyny, especially when it turns violent. And the sort of violent rhetoric and threats common on the dark part of the internet frequented by Incels are repugnant. Rape is discussed and suggested for frustrated men who haven’t lost their virginity.

In Minassian’s Facebook post just before the Toronto attacks, he wrote: “Incel Rebellion has already begun!” and also praised and referred to “Supreme Gentleman” Elliot Rodger, who killed six people and injured 14 during a 2014 shooting and stabbing rampage near the campus of the University of California. He later killed himself in his vehicle. Rodgers is a hero to militant Incels.

In Canada, terrorism has a relatively narrow legal definition. Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code states any act carried out for political, ideological or religious reasons can qualify as terrorism, but not all reasons are created equal. Often, where the criminal acts cannot be linked to coherent ideas or a specific philosophy, they don’t meet the legal standard.

So, it’s easy to refer to al-Qaida or the Islamic State, which have identifiable philosophies, as being terrorist groups. But consider the crimes of Alexander Bisonnette, who murdered six Muslim men in a Quebec City mosque in January 2017. We now know that he was steeped in multiple ultraright conspiracy theories. It’s not clear which, if any, drove him to kill. That lack of clarity is why terrorism charges have not been brought to bear.

It may not matter in the end whether Monday’s rampage meets the legal definition of terrorism. But if it was driven by a social ideology, such as misogyny, it certainly meets the common sense definition. Maybe our laws need to reflect that.

What is becoming more and more apparent is the extent to which the Internet is an essential ingredient and hotbed for this sort of twisted thinking.

In the days before the virtual world, so-called Incels would be largely isolated. Now they have the means to meet, communicate and energize. Pure hatred can be the end result, and may well have led to this. How do we deal with that? How do we stop it from happening again? It’s a painful discussion but one we need to have.

Often, where ... criminal acts cannot be linked to coherent ideas or a specific philosophy, they don’t meet the legal standard for terrorism.