TERROR CHARGE ACHIEVES NOTHING,

His name remains private because he is only 17 years old, and Canadian law shields the identities of underage suspects and offenders.

He is nonetheless charged with murder and terrorism because he is accused of fatally stabbing a woman at a massage parlour in February, and Canadian law’s inclination to protect youngsters only goes so far.

The murder charges are self-explanatory. They came right after the alleged killing, which police have characterized as a machete attack that left 24-year-old Ashley Noelle Arzaga dead and two other victims injured.

But the terrorism charge is less obvious and was not added until earlier this week. It came about because police claim the accused was motivated by “incel” ideology. Global News has reported that, according to a police source, the teenager said he wanted to kill as many women as possible.

Incel is short for involuntarily celibate. It is an online subculture of men who are bitter, angry and crushed by what they see as their rejection by women as romantic or sexual partners.

There is nothing unclear or confusing about the idea that a person who commits a misogynist act of violence must be held to account. Yet there remains something confused about the idea of charging the accused in this case with terrorism.

Does the murkiness come from this being a charge that has until now been reserved for acts motivated by Islamist extremism? (Alexandre Bissonnette, who shot and killed six and injured 19 more at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, was not charged with any terror-related offences.) Or from the reality that this is a charge that will have virtually no effect on the punishment the accused receives as a juvenile?

The law has essentially said: “We cannot tell you this young man’s name because our focus is his eventual rehabilitation into society. However, we have chosen to add an extra symbolic expression of moral censure to his actions because we want everyone to know and remember how exceptionally vile his thoughts were.”

Being skeptical of the terrorism charge is not a position to be voiced in polite society. The RCMP articulated the conventional, enlightened wisdom when it justified the charge by reminding everyone that “(t)errorism comes in many forms and it’s important to note that it is not restricted to any particular group, religion or ideology.”

But there comes a point at which broadening the definition of terrorism is counterproductive.

One justification for terrorism laws is that they are the only way governments can combat the well-funded and well-organized groups that are out to cause focused harm. The incel movement is neither well-funded, nor well-organized. It is not even clear that it is a coherent group. More like diverse pockets of men suffering from widely varying degrees of disaffection, alienation and shame.

Obviously, some of these men can be dangerous, and police should attempt to prevent them from committing crimes. It is just hardly clear that police need extraordinary powers to do so given that this is not a sophisticated network of hidden operatives.

In fact, before they were chased from Reddit and more public channels, proponents of the incel ideology were easy to find with simple Google searches. That infuriated and horrified many people. But it was a safer situation than having incels — who harbour pathological persecution complexes at the best of times — driven underground to fume in secret about the normals who are out to get them.

What purpose do the authorities think the terrorism charge will serve in the case of the accused 17-year-old?

Goodness knows, it is not going to help rehabilitate him. It seems to be virtually irrelevant to his sentencing, serving no legitimate punitive role. The only possibility left is deterrence. Maybe the RCMP’s belief is that publicly declaring the accused’s motivation to be as evil as the spirit that moves members of al-Qaida to bomb tall buildings will cause other incels to think twice before resorting to violence. “Toxic masculinity is as bad religious extremism.”

But that only works if incels are concerned about remaining in society’s good graces. Since the prime motivation for being an incel is a feeling of having already been rejected by a disapproving society, it is a questionable plan.

The government has already gone too far with the 2015 Anti-terrorism act, which gives it the power to punish and silence people for anonymous comments about politically sensitive subjects. Maybe it’s not inconsistent for the government to want to use this excessive authority on potential incels as readily as it may use it on potential jihadists, but let’s keep in mind that the intrusion is a chilling one in both cases. Canadians should be free to criticize Canada’s military role in Afghanistan or to complain about the social phenomenon of hyper feminine women dating muscular men.

A better way to deter incel violence — and violent crime in general — would be to make men feel less shame about seeking mental health treatment. That is not an easy or straightforward thing do. Safe to say, though, that declaring a swath of frustrated, rejected men to be terrorists is unlikely to be the first step.

If he is guilty of the alleged attack, the accused massage parlour killer was appropriately charged with murder. Police should have left it at that.

BEING SKEPTICAL OF THE TERRORISM CHARGE IS NOT A POSITION TO BE VOICED IN POLITE SOCIETY.