Law and Public Policy

D01 - (De)Radicalization in Policy, Law, and Society

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Daniel Cohn (York University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Daniel Cohn (York University)

“Behold a greater than themselves:” Informing De-radicalization policy through lived experiences: Saad Khan (University of Winnipeg)
Abstract: With the global rise in far-right nationalism, de-radicalization and determining best practices which inform de-radicalization policies has become critical. Absence of holistic policies grounded in lived experiences of vulnerable populations has resulted in lacunae which existing literature fails to fill. Relying upon qualitative data, this paper posits that a vertical approach to de-radicalization which has been the usual practice, is at best ill-informed and fails to address the broader, structural elements of radicalization: identity formation based on lived experiences. It is suggested that any robust de-radicalization policy address both micro i.e., individual factors as well as macro factors, as the former inform the latter. Based on the views of vulnerable populations, a model of de-radicalization is offered which can enable cooperation amongst a wide variety of actors ranging from educators to the state, to pre-empt radicalization amongst disaffected populations as well as deradicalize those who have fallen prey to its scourge.

Canadian Radicalization, Extremism Acts and Monitoring: Michael Rossi (University of Waterloo), Emmett Macfarlane (Univeristy of Waterloo), Mohamed Elgayar (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: Radicalization has emerged as a significant security and social concern in Canada, particularly with its implications for national security, public policy, and civil liberties. This paper explores the issue of radicalization from two critical perspectives: legislative frameworks and security studies. From a legislative standpoint, it analyzes Canada’s evolving legal responses to radicalization, focusing on the impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act, Bill C-51, and subsequent amendments under Bill C-59, which attempt to balance the need for security with protections of civil liberties. The paper further investigates how these laws are applied to counter-extremism efforts, including preventive measures, surveillance, and the criminalization of radicalized behavior.

Memory Politics, Democratic Crisis, and Apologetic Legacies: Lessons from Canadian Policy and Jurisprudence: Matt James (University of Victoria)
Abstract: As several leading indices (e.g., V-Dem) attest, democratic backsliding in the advanced capitalist democracies is approaching crisis levels. Although most empirical studies tend to treat backsliding as an institutional problem of diminished horizontal and vertical accountability (e.g., Stokes 2025), the problem also manifests as a crisis of memory. Far-right leaders view the very idea of self-critical introspection about the nation’s past as “emasculating and unpatriotic” (Smith, 2018). Holocaust trivialization and genocide denialism have become increasingly widespread (UNESCO 2022). Although it may seem intuitive that democratic backsliding and the assault on introspective national memory are linked, scholars have not systematically investigated the connection. Indeed, some see the assumption that memory protects democracy as liberal folklore (e.g., Gensburger 2020; Rieff 2018). This paper argues that possible concrete democratic contributions of national introspection lie in rights-focused public policies and rights-focused jurisprudence that emerge from regret for historic injustice. For example, the safeguards against the executive abuse of authority in Canada’s 1988 Emergencies Act are widely acknowledged as world-leading; less well-known is that the Emergencies Act was a direct result of activism from the movement that sought historical redress for the Second World War dispossession and internment of Japanese Canadians (Izumi 1999). This example sets the research agenda for the paper. I will study the legislative and jurisprudential influence of Canadian political apologies (e.g., internment, residential schools, LGBTQ2 persecution, etc.), asking to what extent they have left lasting legacies in policy and jurisprudence that could be said to be democracy-protecting.