When "risk" is no longer a four-letter word

You have to feel for poor little Saad Gaya. OK, you don't really, but follow along with me here...

All he does is join a terrorist cell that wants to use three tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to blow up the TSX and the Toronto offices of CSIS, among other targets. Then, while he's awaiting sentencing, some other jihadi yahoo tries to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, failing miserably, but still making a big public splash over Christmas travel season.

Now, how do you think Gaya's sentencing's going to go?

All snarking aside, here's what I found interesting:

The former McMaster University science student was arrested in 2006 while unloading a delivery truck filled with three tonnes of bags marked ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

That’s three times more ammonium nitrate than was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.

Gaya has pleaded guilty to belonging to a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion that would likely cause serious bodily harm.

The Crown is seeking a sentence of up to 18 years, saying he was a willing participant in a plot that would have caused serious harm or death.

The defence suggested a sentence in the range of 9 to 15 years. [Babbler's emphasis]

Look, I'm no legal expert, but I'm friends with some people who are. Eighteen years is a long time in the Canadian judicial system. Hell, nine years is a long time:

Three women tortured a woman to death (they "beat, burned and cut Ms Friars, glued her eyes shut and carved the word 'Rat' into her forehead"). In all likelihood, each of those three torture-murderers will serve less than ten years in prison. Two of the three were sentenced to 8.5 years in prison (which means, even without counting credit for time served, they will be given statutory release in around six years).

...

Tiffany Pinckney, 23, weighed just 84 1/2 pounds - and resembled a human skeleton - when she was found lying dead on a filthy carpet in the feces- and urine-strewn basement of her residence on Fairwind Dr. in Mississauga. ... Justice Joseph Fragomeni described the circumstances of the case as among the worst he's ever experienced as a trial judge." Among the worst he's ever experience as a trial judge. So outraged was Justice Fragomeni that he insisted that "society demanded ... a lengthy period of incarceration in a federal penitentiary". Demanded! So what's the sentence he hands down? Nine years.

So what am I getting at here? Well, first of all, if both prosecutors and defence lawyers are calling for nine to eighteen years of prison time for a failed terrorist, that's an indication the issue is being taken more seriously than expected by the judiciary.

What's more, look at the phrasing in the CP piece highlighted above: "That’s three times more ammonium nitrate than was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people." A far cry from the way the story was being spun in the media a couple of years ago, I'd say.

We're also seeing support in two of Canada's national newspapers - the Globe & Mail and the National Post - for some sort of profiling in order to improve Canadian air travel security.

Most interesting of all is that our news media might just be reflecting a shift in the mood of the nation towards the idea of risk:

Three out of four Canadians strongly or moderately support the use of electronic body scanners to screen airline passengers, according to a poll conducted this week.

Why is this worth mentioning on a blog dedicated to the Canadian Forces? Because the men and women of the CF are our sheepdogs, the people we count on to protect us from harm:

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

(And if you haven't read LTC (RET) Dave Grossman's "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" then I heartily recommend you go do that now. Don't worry, we'll be here when you get back.)

Right now, in this economy, we're all tightening our belts. Quite rightly our government is too. The single biggest line item in the Government of Canada's budget belongs to DND, and the Conservatives and their mandarins have tasked the CF with bearing some of that burden.

But hopefully, hopefully, Canadians are remembering that the first job of government is to keep its citizenry safe from harm. Hopefully Canadians are remembering the disastrous effects of a budget cut to the bone the last time Canada was in severe economic straits:

"Over the past one to two years, we have begun to fully realize the immense, the negative impact of the defence expenditure reductions in 1994 and the lasting, almost negative legacy that they brought into effect that has to be put right," Gen. Hillier said.

He noted the cuts have left "some deep wounds ... in the Canadian Forces over this past, what I would call, a decade of darkness."

Hopefully the average Canadian voter is beginning to mature a bit in his or her understanding of the grave risks that face our country, and of the men and women who wear the uniform of the CF. Because it's those men and women who stand between all of us and the dangers we face - the dangers we often don't even know that we face - each and every day.

As General Hillier once said: "In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do. But we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets."

Maybe the Canadian people have begun to make that connection - between the safety we rely upon our soldiers to provide and the means we give them to provide it - too.

What's-up-with-that?-date: So much for my thesis...

A recently released survey commissioned by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and conducted by the Innovative Research Group shows that Canadian perceptions of the threats to our vital interests in the next 10 years have shifted a great deal. In the survey conducted from Dec. 22, 2009 to Jan. 4, 2010, responders were asked to assess a list of possible threats to Canada in the next 10 years, indicating whether they saw them as critical threats, important but not critical threats, or not important threats at all.

Compared to the results of a similar study conducted in October 2004, climate change now dominates the agenda, while terrorism and potential epidemics have almost disappeared from Canadians' radar screen. Half of Canadians say climate change is a critical threat to the vital interests of the country in the next 10 years (49 per cent in 2010 vs. 52 per cent in 2004), making it the most important threat. About one in four now say international terrorism is a critical threat, a level well below what was being observed in 2004 (28 per cent in 2010 vs. 49 per cent in 2004).

Concern over the number of immigrants and refugees has grown since 2004, with more than one in four saying it is a critical threat (27 per cent in 2010 vs. 21 per cent in 2004). Overall, perceptions of globalization as a critical threat to the country have receded compared with 2004 (19 per cent in 2010 vs. 28 per cent in 2004). Finally, although potential epidemics dominated the list of critical threats in post-SARS 2004, only 16 per cent of Canadians now say it is a critical threat (60 per cent of Canadians said it was a critical threat in 2004).

The survey clearly shows that Canadian perceptions of threats have greatly diminished over the past four years. The overall concern, identified by "important and critical" threats combined remains largely unchanged but, significantly, the survey shows a major shift in the identification of these threats as critical. Here intensity matters, as the identification of threats as critical implies the need to take action.

LGen (Ret'd) Jeffery goes on to say what I was thinking:

Implicit in these trends are major threats to global stability, which in turn are critical threats to Canada and our way of life. Countering them requires national focus and a commitment, as part of the international community, to change the nation and help re-shape world governance. The fact that too few Canadians view these threats as significant does not bode well for the nation.

The kind of actions required to respond to these threats will take commitment and sacrifice. Canadians, historically blessed with wealth and security, have a generally positive view of the world and don't perceive these threats as a serious danger to their well being. But this must change. To successfully confront these growing challenges, there needs to be an honest recognition of the difficulties ahead and the development of a collective will to do something about it.

In the final analysis the problem is one of leadership. While it is understandable that such rhetoric does not garner votes, our political leaders have a responsibility to educate the public and set the conditions required for positive change. In short, it requires men and women of courage and vision. One has to wonder where they are.

Hear, hear.