Appearance before the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO)

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here today on behalf of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. My name is Jean-Pierre and I am the Director General for Counter Terrorism.

I would first like to thank the committee for inviting CSIS to appear on this very important issue. I will take this opportunity to situate antifeminist rhetoric within the current threat landscape and discuss the pathways to violent extremism and CSIS’s efforts to counter these threats.

CSIS takes ideological, religious, and political extremist violence very seriously, and continues to analyze, investigate, and mitigate threats of violence directed at women, as well as the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, in Canada.

Gender/ Identity-driven violent extremism is a distinct category of ideologically motivated violent extremism (or IMVE). While it continues to pose a significant threat to Canada’s national security, much of what happens in the broader threat landscape is criminal, but not national security, or what we often call “awful but lawful” –falling below the threshold of both criminal and national security. CSIS is mandated to investigate and disrupt threats that meet the national security threshold, as defined in section 2c of the CSIS Act: CSIS assesses that threat actors have intent and capability to use serious violence (or encourage or inspire others to engage in serious violence), and are motivated in whole or in part by ideology, and have the objective of affecting societal change outside of the political process.

The violent extremist landscape in Canada is complex, and there is no “one size fits all” worldview - not everyone’s path of radicalization is the same, nor linear.

Extreme antifeminist rhetoric is a national security issue only when associated with ideological, religious and political extremists who engage in violence in support of anti-gender/identity beliefs. These beliefs could stem from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.

To counter these threats and protect public safety, CSIS continues to vigorously investigate and disrupt threat activities in collaboration with foreign and domestic security intelligence and law enforcement partners.

I will conclude by noting that while CSIS cannot publicly comment on its operational activities or ongoing  investigations, I welcome this opportunity for a frank and transparent discussion on the threats Canada’s youth may be facing and will be happy to answer your questions.

Madam Chair and Honourable Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Luc, and I am the Director General of Assessments at Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, or ITAC.

ITAC is a fusion centre that brings together experts from across the Canadian security and intelligence community. Our mandate is analytic: we provide decision-makers and security partners with rigorous, all-source threat assessments to help safeguard Canadians and advance Canadian interests. We do not conduct investigations or enforcement activities.

ITAC assesses national security threats to Canada and Canadians, including the likelihood of violent extremist attacks. These assessments inform the National Terrorism Threat Level. Our focus is on threats that have progressed to the violent extremism end of the spectrum, where we assess ideology alongside indicators of intent, capability, and a willingness to use lethal violence.

From this perspective, antifeminist ideology is increasingly relevant to Canada’s national security landscape. I want to be clear that ITAC does not assess ideology in isolation, nor do we consider the expression of beliefs—however controversial—to constitute a national security threat. The vast majority of individuals who hold antifeminist views will never engage in or support violence.

However, our assessments indicate that, in certain contexts, antifeminist ideology can function as an enabling factor along pathways to violent extremism. These narratives can provide grievance frameworks that legitimize hostility toward women and gender equality, and elements of them are consistent with those observed in ideologically motivated violent extremism.

In some cases, antifeminist narratives serve as early points of engagement, particularly in online environments, and may intersect with other extremist ideologies, including violent extremist interpretations of religion that promote rigid gender hierarchies. These assessments do not concern religious belief broadly, but rather the use of ideology to justify coercion or harm.

From a national security perspective, antifeminist ideology warrants attention when it appears alongside indicators of violent intent. Women, including elected officials, journalists, and educators, may be portrayed as undermining social order, which can contribute to environments where harassment, threats, and, in rare cases, violence become more likely.

In closing, ITAC will continue to work with partners across the intelligence, law enforcement, policy, and prevention communities to assess emerging trends and provide early warning of violent extremist threats.

Thank you.