Why Does Canada Disagree with Other Western Countries About the Likelihood of Terrorist Attacks?

Commentary

In the intelligence and law enforcement world, there is a concept known as a “duty to warn.” This means that if reliable information, including intelligence, suggests that someone is in danger, there is an obligation to inform them, even if it may risk exposing sensitive data. This practice is generally considered a good idea.

Regarding terrorism, intelligence agencies use tools such as “national threat levels” to assess the likelihood of an attack at any given time. These threat levels are based on investigations using human and signals intelligence (HUMINT and SIGINT).

Recently, Western security agencies have publicly stated that they are on high alert for potential attacks, particularly in France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, following the ISIS-K attack in Moscow that claimed 137 lives. This increased sense of danger is also linked to previous threats around the holiday season and geopolitical conflicts.

The FBI has warned of a heightened terrorist threat level in the US, especially in relation to events in Gaza. In Canada, the terrorism threat level remains at three, indicating that a terrorist attack could occur. This level has not changed since 2014, raising questions about the government’s response to intelligence.

There are concerns that political correctness may be influencing decisions not to raise the threat level, despite ongoing global terrorism threats. The reluctance to acknowledge Islamist terrorism openly raises questions about the government’s handling of intelligence and security measures.

Overall, it is important for Canadians to be informed about potential threats and for the government to prioritize national security in addressing these issues.