Evidence of meeting #16 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was extremism.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I'll have to do a little bit of surgical snipping in the next four turns. They will be surgical and only snips, which means that, Ms. Larouche, you have two minutes and the floor is yours.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Campana, I don't have much time in this last round.
After the 2019 attacks in New Zealand, you said that, although people had already gained awareness of the threat posed by the far right, it became more evident. You also said something along these lines:
These ideologies are penetrating the transnational arena in a very big way because of how quickly a number of conspiracy theories are being shared, not to mention graphic references with a neo-Nazi slant, on many websites that are very popular with the far right.
Three years later, would you say those ideas are spreading more quickly and finding a larger audience than before? If so, what can we do?
11:55 a.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
Yes, I think those ideas are spreading more quickly. Other ideas have latched on to them, largely because of the public health emergency we are still living with.
What can we do? It comes down to what my colleague Jessica Davis said about regulating social media. As I see it, the question we have to ask revolves around the spreading of these views beyond the far right and other extremist movements.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Do you think it's important to adopt tougher policies to address more hateful content? Would that keep these ideas from finding a broader audience?
As you pointed out, there is a link with the emergence of the extremist movement.
11:55 a.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
It's possible, but it would be necessary to find the right mechanisms to prevent hateful content from spreading to a broader audience. I have to tell you that I haven't thought about what those mechanisms should look like, in concrete terms.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
Mr. MacGregor, you have two minutes. The floor is yours, sir.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
To Professor Campana, in your view, how much of a threat do misinformation and disinformation present to our democracy?
11:55 a.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
That's a highly complex question.
Today, we are seeing parallel communication spaces, what we generally call dominant media or alternative media. They are fuelled by far-right, far-left and jihadist groups, which rely heavily on conspiracy theories.
Some governments play a role, as well. Russia is often mentioned. It helped to bring these alternative communication spaces to life. As I said in my opening statement, Canadian society is not as polarized as society in the U.S., but there are divides [Technical difficulty—Editor] fuel those divides and could eventually become [Technical difficulty—Editor].
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Quickly, for my final minute, you have recommended that we do regulate social media platforms.
Following on the question I asked Ms. Davis on how social media is able to monetize hate through getting multiple viewers and getting that advertising revenue, do you have any specific recommendations on how we can regulate the ability to monetize hate on social media platforms?
11:55 a.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
Again, I have to tell you that I haven't thought, in concrete terms, about those mechanisms. Fundamentally, my focus is research, not practical implementation. We are seeing certain individuals emerge as influencers. Jessica Davis mentioned that a number of times, as did Mubin Shaikh. These individuals use their positions of influence to fund-raise for themselves, but also for other movements.
I think special attention should be paid to those individuals, who have the ability to move from one social media platform to another.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
We have two more short interventions.
First, Mr. Van Popta, you have three minutes. The floor is yours.
Noon
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My question will be for Mr. Shaikh. Thank you for being here, sir.
In your opening address you talked about the role of community in preventing trajectories of violence to extremism. You highlighted that people with these extreme views should be felt to be unwelcome and that their views were unsustainable and impractical in what you called the “cosmopolitan future” we live here in Canada. We see some young people having been perhaps born and raised here in Canada with western values becoming radicalized and travelling overseas to join terrorist groups.
What do you say about that? What's the solution there?
Noon
Counter Extremism Specialist, As an Individual
Thank you for your question.
My comment was really on how we can treat the proliferation of these views in a public context, such as for teachers to deal with trying to prevent a student from becoming radicalized.
Very recently, there were some instructions or a training course for teachers to identify students who might be becoming radicalized and on how to deal with that. I think it was funded or supported by the ministry of public safety. There was a whole discourse how on teachers should just be teachers. Teachers are not spies. Teachers are not police. Of course there are duties to report if a teacher comes across information that is of a serious nature. Just like doctors and other professionals have a duty to report, in this case they would have to do the same thing.
The message I gave to the teachers was that a student is greatly influenced by their teachers, especially depending on what period of development they're in, as children or teenagers or so on. They can bring to bear their expertise as teachers or as pastors or whatever their particular context is in which they engage with these individuals.
My statement was about making people understand that these supremacist, absolutist views that people take are unsustainable and impractical for life in Canada.
As for those people who have grown up in the west and went over there, at the end of the day we will not be able to prevent all radicalization. A certain amount of people will just go down that radicalization rabbit hole.
Unfortunately, at some point it's past the prevention stage and will fall into the intervention stage. That's really where the authorities will have to bring to bear their capabilities.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
For the last round, Mr. Noormohamed, you have three minutes. The floor is yours.
Noon
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thanks very much.
Mr. Shaikh, one of the themes through all of this is what I would term the issue of prevention and how you understand where you are today. There is a politicization in terms of how we think about these issues.
Can you share with us your thoughts or your concerns about the ways in which some of these things have become political, both here and in the United States? What are some things we might want to be aware of, as elected officials, in the way we speak about these things, to ensure we are not helping to fan the flames?
Noon
Counter Extremism Specialist, As an Individual
It's a very good question. Thank you for that.
I used to joke sometimes, whenever I gave a presentation on radicalization, and I used to say that radicalization is not a condition that only affects brown people. For a long time the discourse around radicalization was centred on the Muslim community, obviously because of the post-9/11 environment, and then it also accelerated with this ISIS crisis we went through. But as researchers know very well, radicalization is a condition that affects anybody if the conditions are right, if the ingredients are there. I like to make a lot of jokes sometimes with the cupcake theory of radicalization: If the ingredients are there and the temperature is right, you've going to get cupcakes. One thing we need to understand is that this is a human process. This is something that any human being, any group, any nationality, political or otherwise, can go through if the ingredients are there.
Number one is to understand that this is a human psychological process that anybody can go through. Number two, I would say that we need to be equal in the way in which we prosecute individuals. My fellow panellist, Jessica Davis, was talking about applying the laws equally across the board. We have terrorism laws. Why are we only applying them to brown people? We have individuals who are not brown—sorry to be simplistic like that—who are really engaging in serious offences. They should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly. Sometimes, however, you get cases—and these are legal issues that, obviously, I'm not qualified to speak on—where you might have a terrorist incident, but there might not be a terrorist charge. For example, in the London family attack there was a terrorist charge with that. The individual murdered several members of a family during Ramadan last year—and Ramadan is about to start in a few more days. You have other cases, for example the Bissonnette mass murder at the Quebec mosque, where there were no terrorism charges. Of course, there were first-degree murder charges, which are easier to prove and carry a life sentence.
This just shows you—
12:05 p.m.
Counter Extremism Specialist, As an Individual
—that we should be more equal in the way in which we apply these laws.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses for some very compelling testimony on some deeply disturbing issues. Thank you very much for sharing your insights with us this morning.
Colleagues, we will now take a five-minute break and suspend the meeting for a change in panellists.
We'll see you in five minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I call the meeting back to order. Thank you very much, everybody, witnesses, members.
I just want to start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
There will be five minutes of introductory remarks by our witnesses. They are, Martin Geoffroy from the Centre d'expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux, les idéologies politiques et la radicalisation; Louis Audet Gosselin from the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence; and Daniel J. Rogers from The Global Disinformation Index.
Maybe I would ask Mr. Rogers to begin, if you wouldn't mind, sir. You have five minutes and the floor is yours.
March 31st, 2022 / 12:10 p.m.
Dr. Daniel J. Rogers Executive Director, The Global Disinformation Index
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the funding mechanisms of ideologically motivated violent extremist groups.
I am the co-founder and executive director of The Global Disinformation Index, a non-profit focused on catalyzing change in the technology industry to disrupt the business model of online disinformation.
In 2020, my colleague, Ben Decker, and our team at the GDI collaborated with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue to conduct a series of studies entitled “Bankrolling Bigotry” to examine the funding mechanisms of a selection of hate groups in North America and Europe. Many of these groups are the same ones associated with recent acts of ideologically motivated violent extremism in recent years.
I appear before you today to discuss what we learned about how the technology and payments companies enable groups like those that participate in these events to operate.
These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy or Teespring or Redbubble to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popularize the ideologically motivated violent extremist threat.
Last year, at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection in the United States, including eight members of the Proud Boys, a group the Canadian government has designated as a terrorist entity, used crowdfunding site GiveSendGo to raise nearly a quarter of a million dollars in donations. It's not just about the money. Merchandise like t-shirts, which I just mentioned, act as team jerseys to help these groups recruit new members and foment further hatred towards their targets.
In North America we analyzed the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites and 225 social media accounts, and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms, five different cryptocurrencies, and we ultimately found a 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms such as Stripe or Shopify, crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payment facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services like YouTube, Super Chats, and cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin.
All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Gab, BitChute, and others.
The sheer number of companies I just mentioned is the first clue to the scale and scope of the problem. This is not an issue of any one individual company, but rather a systemic problem of hate and bigotry exploiting an entire industry, and even sometimes government policy, to raise funds, peddle extremist ideologies and commit acts of violence.
We did a similar analysis of hate crimes groups in Europe with a specific focus on Germany, ahead of their recent federal elections, and found similar results.
A number of our conclusions stood out in performing this work. For starters, over half of the platforms we identified already had policies to explicitly prohibit hate and extremism, but those policies simply went unenforced. In the United States we found a large fraction of the groups we studied had approved tax-exempt status. In fact, a full 100% of anti-Muslim groups, 75% of anti-immigrant groups, 70% of anti-LGBTQ groups, and a third of the militias that we identified, including the Oath Keepers, had U.S. 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, giving them access to a whole spectrum of charity fundraising tools from Facebook donations to AmazonSmile, to the point that the most common fundraising platform we identified across all of our data was actually Charity Navigator's The Giving Basket function.
Simply put, private industry must step up and do more. Since the publication of our first report last October, we've documented at least 17 actions taken by platforms against the North American groups we enumerated. For example, four of the six payment mechanisms routing funds to the Oath Keepers have been blocked. Amazon has even removed them from AmazonSmile. However, 17 actions out of the nearly 200 instances we observed speaks to the rampant way the problem has been allowed to persist.
In fact, after most platforms were removed, the Oath Keepers payment facilitator, RallyPay, continued to service the group's fundraising needs, even as the group's leader was indicted in the United States for seditious conspiracy.
More must be done. Industry-wide standards must be set, and enforcement across both public and private sectors must be stepped up. Platforms must be held to measurable commitments, and transparency regimens, and subjected to third-party scrutiny, to keep them accountable.
Members of the committee, I thank you for your time today, and I welcome your questions.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
Now I will turn to Mr. Gosselin.
I invite you to give us a five-minute opening statement. The floor is yours, sir.
12:15 p.m.
Louis Audet Gosselin Scientific and Strategic Director, Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be with you today to discuss the rise and evolution of ideologically motivated violent extremism.
For the past two years, this type of extremism has obviously been heavily influenced by the COVID‑19 pandemic, as evidenced by the anti-health measure movement here, in Canada.
As mentioned by other witnesses, what sets these movements apart is that they are highly decentralized and globalized, making crowdfunding a natural avenue for fundraising. These movements are not made up of very large groups that can rally a large number of people. They also do not have a hierarchical structure, as was the case in previous decades in relation to extremism and counterterrorism.
Fundraising aside, ideas travel around the world with ease, resonating with people. The influence of the U.S. on far-right movements in Quebec and Canada has often been cited, but the opposite is also true. The so-called freedom convoy in Ottawa illustrated that events in Canada were having an impact all over the world. Ideas spread very quickly, finding an echo.
It's not surprising that ideologically motivated extremism grew or became more defined during the pandemic. Periods of crises are always conducive to radicalization and the emergence of extremism because they exacerbate certain vulnerability factors. Consequently, the pool of people willing to pay attention to extremist views or ideologies expands. Some of the main vulnerability factors that came into play were social isolation, fear of the unknown and anxiety stemming from the pandemic, which can drive people to adopt preconceived and extreme views, as well as extreme solutions.
The polarization of public debate is another consideration. Not only do elected officials play a role, but so do the media and all public figures. Politicizing public health measures has led to deep polarization and great uncertainty throughout the population. When issues become polarized, it tends to bring about vulnerability factors and radicalization more quickly, and exacerbate them.
The Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence has solutions. Based in Montreal, the centre promotes prevention through education, outreach and support for individuals in the process of being radicalized and their friends and family. We take a prevention-based approach.
Thus far, the vast majority of anti-health measure activists have not engaged in violence. Most of the violence observed revolves around online threats, which are serious and should be treated accordingly. Prevention can play a tremendous role, since great anxiety and a heightened sense of insecurity and marginalization are factors. I encourage you to think about that.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions.