Content warning: This story mentions alt-right activism, Islamophobia, and hatred. 

The Liberal Party “is infested with Islamists,” BJ Dichter, one of the organizers of the “Freedom Convoy”, claimed, in front of a crowd of avid listeners at a speech at the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) convention in Quebec in 2019.

Alberta-based alt-right activist Pat King, a regional organizer for the convoy, is known for similar white nationalist rhetoric. In one of many videos he’s posted to Twitter, King warned of “refugees coming in[to Canada].” He stated that this is all part of “an endgame. It’s called depopulation of the Caucasian race.”

As the convoy swept through Ottawa, many of the capital’s community services organizations and residents felt the impact of this influx of protestors. In a now well-known incident, homeless shelter workers were harassed and a client was allegedly assaulted. A property displaying a rainbow flag was attacked. People wearing masks were reportedly accosted by demonstrators. And the swastikas, Nazi symbols, and Confederate flags on display in the protest escalated the local community’s concerns that this was not simply about vaccine-mandate freedom.

While the convoy was the most blatant example of alt-right extremism in Canada in recent years, it certainly won’t be the last. Data shows that hate-motivated violence is on the rise. Sadly, community service organizations and their staff are often on the frontlines of this violence. Future of Good spoke to experts to learn how these organizations can recognize the signs of radicalization, as well as how they can intervene safely and effectively.

Why is radicalization on the rise?

There are different factors that can explain why individuals become attracted to alt-right extremism. People feel increasingly marginalized – economically and politically – for a number of reasons, which may include the widening wealth gap, low job security and poor labour standards, and a feeling that politicians in power do not represent them. This marginalization, along with economic discontent, a lack of trust in authority or institutions, and a feeling of isolation, contribute to more people being drawn to radical movements.

Louis Audet Gosselin, the scientific and strategic director of the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRLV), says in an interview with Future of Good: “One of the main drivers of radicalization is the feeling of being marginalized or unheard or discriminated against. This feeling can be real or perceived.”

If a person does not have family support or strong friendships, this can also lead to a feeling of isolation, which can make them more susceptible to radicalization. People “will try to find a meaningful circle of friends or some sort of family with extremist groups,” Gosselin says.   

Polarization over political opinions is also a major factor. “We often see general political or social issues leading individuals to become very angry at the state of the world and wanting to act upon it,” he continues.

And polarization is increasing due to the role played by social media platforms and online communities in disseminating disinformation or showing users information that is likely to stir up a reaction from them. These platforms and communities “can do a lot to promote divisive rhetoric and polarization,” says Samantha Reusch, the executive director of Apathy is Boring, in an interview. The organization has tools for recognizing and talking about disinformation with others, and it is currently developing a more comprehensive disinformation strategy. Another organization, the Samara Centre for Democracy, has similar tools, and has produced a report on how to build civic literacy, referred to as “the answer to fake news and disinformation.” 

Reusch notes that online platforms “create echo chambers that distort perspective and drive a person towards radicalized views. When a person is vulnerable (for any number of reasons), they can find comfort and a sense of purpose in radicalized spaces which they might be missing in other aspects of their life.”

Online platforms play a big role in spreading inaccurate information, as well as information that provokes an emotional response, whether positive or negative. And because of improvements in technology over the last few decades, the speed by which this information can be shared – and its potential reach – is also growing.

Bernie Farber, the chair of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), points out the changing ways in which extremists have a voice and are able to reach an audience. In the past, he says in an interview, extremists “stood on street corners, they handed out leaflets, and if five people took the leaflet, that was considered a good day.”

Nowadays, though, they are able to reach hundreds of thousands of people by creating websites and using social media. “And if only five thousand… respond, and of those five thousand, five hundred become dangerous radicalized young people,… that’s way, way more than we’ve ever had before,” Farber says.

Who is most susceptible to radicalization?

While anyone can become sympathetic to extremist views, Farber notes that certain people are more susceptible than others. “For the most part,” he says, “we’re usually looking at young, impressionable, lonely men and women, boys and girls – sometimes they’re quite young – with not much of a social structure to depend on for support… Very often, these young people are missing major pieces in their life or they’re looking for fulfillment.”

When asked if this demographic has changed over the years, Farber says that “this has been true since time immemorial… When you go back here in Canada to the development of the Heritage Front, probably Canada’s most successful neo-Nazi organization of the time, they were recruiting young high school kids… The Heritage Front offered them what they weren’t getting in school.”

A tool produced by CPRLV outlines some “vulnerability factors” to help people understand the radicalization process. As the tool explains, “Some people exhibit certain characteristics that tend to make them more fragile (intolerance of ambiguity, lack of critical thinking skills, difficult life events), or are exposed to environmental factors (radical social network, weak social or emotional ties) that cause them to be more vulnerable to radicalization.”

However, although demographic and vulnerability factors can help to identify those most susceptible to extremist beliefs, Gosselin points out that it’s essential to view the individual rather than these factors. “There’s a whole range of vulnerability factors that are very much at the heart of the radicalization process. But it’s always important to contextualize and to analyze them with someone who knows the person well [otherwise] we risk alienating people more… We risk fueling more [hatred].”

Who may be on the frontlines in encounters with those who have been radicalized?

Hospital workers, mental health care providers, and community service organizations, including food banks, homeless shelters, social services programs, and others may be on the frontlines. However, the “frontline” is also expanding, and it can now include digital spaces and phone lines. Online psychotherapists, social workers who conduct assessments over the phone, and those responding to calls at helplines for youth, for example, may also be working with people who exhibit the aforementioned vulnerability factors. 

Farber believes that “the first people that would probably [encounter] young people who are in the midst of becoming radicalized – or even before they become radicalized – will be teachers and those in the education system.” This is because young people are more susceptible to radicalization, and school is where youth spend the majority of their time.

What are some of the signs of radicalization that frontline workers and community service organizations should recognize?

“What we hear from the frontline workers and community organizations is often that people drop out of activities when they become radicalized,” says Gosselin. “They don’t participate in social activities as much as they used to. If someone is really involved in sports or some neighbourhood activities… and suddenly they stop having interest and drop out, this is often a sign of worry.”

This is difficult to monitor, though, because it’s an absence of a person – an absence of their behaviour and engagement – rather than the physical presence of something. But it could be concerning, “because extremism will lead people to focus on a more global goal or a very restricted interest that will lead them to abandon all other activities,” says Gosselin.

Educators are also well-placed to see signs of radicalization in their students, Farber says, especially in the work they complete for school. Written assignments or other opinion-based work can often show if a student is leaning towards extremist beliefs.

As well, because people are often radicalized online, particularly in gaming processes, online behaviours could be indicators. If someone is spending a lot of time gaming, and is isolated and disengaged from other activities, this could be cause for concern.

Unfortunately, though, there isn’t a surefire “list of signs that we can recognize,” says Gosselin. While the vulnerability factors listed in the CPRLV tool could provide useful guidance for frontline workers, many of the people they encounter who play online games, feel lonely, and drop out of social activities won’t become violent.

“It is often misleading to work [under that assumption],” Gosselin warns, “because many of these factors are shared by a lot of people, most of whom will never experience the radicalization process. So it’s very important to keep that in mind.”

What are some of the dangers frontline workers and community service organizations face when encountering radicalized people?

The risk to personal security is the biggest threat facing frontline workers. This can be anything from verbal harassment to actual violent attacks. These attacks are also shifting from in-person encounters to the Internet, which increases the ease by which they can occur.

Online extremism means that an individual or an organization could be regularly subjected to hate-fuelled attacks, and the preventative or de-escalation measures for them are not clear since attackers are often anonymous and the injuries not visible.

According to the toolkit for combatting online hate produced by the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), this form of hate can do irreparable damage to its victims. In particular, there are many mental health repercussions, as victims may experience “higher levels of anxiety, stress, and stress-related illnesses such as high blood pressure; higher risk of depression and suicide; feelings of hopelessness, fear, mistrust, despair, alienation; damaged self-esteem; and higher risk of substance dependency.”

What does safe, effective intervention look like?

While intervention can take many different forms, frontline workers need to first be able to identify the signs of radicalization, vague as they may be.

First-response intervention can simply take the form of asking questions. Within the context of the education system, Farber suggests that teachers can check on students by asking themselves some important questions: “Is this student showing up to school? Is this student ultra-quiet? Are we hearing outbursts that are uncharacteristic? There are a number of telltale, troubling signs that teachers have to be cognizant of.”

When encountering online hate, CASSA’s toolkit outlines the “5 Ds of Bystander Intervention” that a witness to the situation can follow. The 5 Ds are to Distract (engage the victim in a different conversation to try to diffuse the situation); Delegate (find others who can help); Direct (intervene and speak up about what was witnessed); Delay (don’t respond right away to the perpetrator but instead focus on supporting the victim); and Document (keep a record of the online hate you come across).

For Gosselin, any intervention should include “disengagement from violence as a first step.” This refers to the process of renouncing violence as a means to achieve a goal or resolve a conflict. Social integration, which involves building up a social circle and fostering positive relationships, would be the next step. But the prevention of violence is, of course, a primary objective.

CPRLV has a number of guides and toolkits to aid various community service organizations in understanding the issues leading to radicalization and taking preventative actions that are effective. There are three levels of prevention – and appropriate interventions to go with each – that CPRLV has identified: primary prevention focuses on the whole population; secondary prevention focuses on those who are at risk of radicalization; and tertiary prevention focuses on the reintegration of formerly radicalized individuals.

These toolkits have been developed for social workers and counsellors; school personnel; workers and managers; and others. Interventions will differ depending on the situation and the type of community service organization that is intervening. One example of an effective strategy social workers can use, for instance, is to adopt a communicative approach, rather than a policing approach, “to collect the desired information tactfully and sensitively without arousing distrust or causing the individual to withdraw into him- or herself.”

CPRLV has shared its tools with various family centres and high schools in Québec and has reportedly had success in helping individuals work through ideological and cultural differences. Due to privacy concerns, though, the organization could not share more details about these successes. 

But whichever intervention is chosen, Gosselin stresses that the most important thing, “is to remain present and to remain in contact with people – to be open and to be empathetic towards the individual because [they] are often suffering. They are angry at something that might not be right in their worldview, or they might have dangerous or violent ideas, but the roots of their activism are often based on legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.”

Community-building strategies are also interventions that social-sector organizations can undertake. “Countering divisiveness, hate, and radicalization is not simply about creating alternative sources of information,” says Reusch. “It is about creating structures, networks, and offering support as opposed to promoting social isolation.”

Above all, Gosselin encourages people to try “seeing the human behind the ideas and the ideology… Keep communication open and keep the door open.”  

What are the policy-level interventions that are needed?

Education is key, according to Farber, as the radicalization process often begins at a young age. “There has to be anti-oppression and anti-genocide studies that begin in early high school for people to understand the power of hate and what oppression can do – historically and to this day,” he said. “Right now, we have no such thing in any curriculum anywhere in this country.”

CAHN is currently developing a toolkit, funded by the Canadian government, on confronting and preventing hate in schools.

Legislation is another important intervention, as there needs to be clear consequences for hateful acts, Farber says. “We do have to create fences of protection for [communities vulnerable to hate-motivated attacks],” Farber stresses. “And the only way to do that is by having proper resources… That resource could be law, it could be regulations, it could be all kinds of things. But then the law has to be properly applied. You can have law, but if you don’t have enough police personnel to understand that law and apply it properly, it’s really pretty useless.”

Reusch believes that we also need to find a way “to make social media more transparent and accountable [for] their impacts on our social fabric and on our democracy. These reforms are as necessary as they are overdue given the role that social media and online content play.” The Canadian government has recognized the negative impact of online hate and is working on regulations for online safety.

The government should also provide more funding for the various interventions previously outlined. When asked where funding is most needed, Gosselin says that it should be targeted at services for youth, mental health care providers, and community service organizations that address basic needs.  

Reusch agreed with this in a statement provided to Future of Good: “Allocating resources not only to research and public security measures but also to community-based organizations [will] enable the effective mobilization of communities to [stop the movement] towards radical spaces.”

What is the state of extremism in Canada today?

Worryingly, the number of police-reported hate crimes has been on the rise over the last few years, indicating that extremist violence is increasing in the country.

Statistics Canada data shows that “the number of police-reported crimes motivated by hatred of a race or ethnicity increased 10 [percent], from 793 to 876” incidents between 2018 and 2019.

And the latest data from the first year of the pandemic shows a 37 percent increase in hate crimes as well. “The 2,669 police-reported hate crimes in 2020 were the largest number recorded since comparable data became available in 2009,” reads a recent report from Statistics Canada.  

But Gosselin notes that it is difficult to identify whether or not extremism is increasing or decreasing because it ebbs and flows, and various societal and political events can trigger its rise or fall from year to year. 

He confirms that CPRLV, which is based in Montreal, was receiving an increasing number of calls for help. But “this doesn’t give us the precise state of extremism in Québec. They are, rather, a measure of how much our services are known… Extremism will stay with us probably forever in some way or another. [However], we can work to lessen the consequences and the violence that it can create.”

Gosselin does point to some hopeful signs. “There are now… a few organizations throughout the country that work in preventing radicalization which we did not have ten years ago, so we are better equipped than we were in the past to deal with that issue.”

Community organizations can work to address the broader reasons for the discontent felt by those with extremist beliefs. But there will always be gaps in the system and needs that are unmet, despite these organizations’ best efforts.

“There are always going to be places where things fall down,” says Farber. “So we do the best we can to try and train teachers, to try and train social services and health professionals to recognize [radicalization]. But we’re not ever going to create a perfect society. So we just have to be prepared [for it].”

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error