Note: When I wrote the following piece it was not absolutely clear that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau had killed and attacked the House of Commons for ideological reasons. Now from the video he left the RCMP indicated he said he did so for political and ideological reasons. That is terrorism pure and simple. The original blog follows:

Canada is no stranger to terrorism. Nonetheless what has happened in the heart of our capital on the heels of what happened in Sait- Jean-sur-Richilieu has been a wakeup call for all to confront the monster of terrorism.

In the first three days of this week two attempts were made to terrorise Canada: the attacks by Martin Couture- Rouleau/Martin 'Ahmed' Rouleau/ Abu Ibrahim Al Canadi killing Patrice Vincent in Quebec and by Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau/ Joseph Paul Michael Abdalla Bulgasem Zehaf-bibeau/or simply Michael Zehaf-bibeau on the House of Commons and shooting the unarmed reservist Nathan Cirillo who stood as ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier across from the House of Commons in Ottawa, the heart of our democracy.

Like all other Canadians and all peace loving people across the world my heart goes out to the families of the fallen soldiers. I salute the heroism and dedication of all those who have stood and continue to stand on guard for us including the brave men and women such as the Sargeant-at- Arms Kevin Vickers who shot and killed the attacker and the unarmed Commons security guard Samearn Son who was shot in the leg at the entrance to the House after he noticed the attacker's gun and tried to wrestle it from him pushing it down ward. After the attacker got away from him Son shouted "gun, gun, gun....." which helped others to quickly focus on the attacker and take him down.

The government of Canada's intention to provide more powers to our law enforcement agencies predates the horror and the loss of our two unarmed soldiers. The Rouleau/Bibeau perpetrated horror has exposed some weaknesses in surveillance, data collection/coordination and perhaps in the pre-emptive/ preventive powers to deal with apprehended danger. I recall that the police do now have some added powers in this regard under our anti terror legislation which may need to be reviewed and sharpened. While I do not know what the government is proposing, I do support strengthening the hands of the law enforcement agencies with respect to terrorism/extremism/hate with due regard to due process and adequate safeguards for our basic liberties.

It has been reported that the government would be introducing legislation to ban "online justification of terrorist acts."The opponents of hate and terror would welcome any reasonable proposals to do so with appropriate safeguards. My question though would be "why just online?" Unless we can be assured that provisions already exist to deal with any print and public remarks not online, why shall we not also criminalise any publicly published (which includes spoken) justification of extremism/terrorism? Does "the justification" include glorification of past acts of terrorism and terrorists that implicitly encourage terrorism? Is the government considering a provision to criminalise explicit encouragement and/or incitement to terror? These are some issues that confront us in Canadaa. There are many others. We need to arrive at answers that enhance our security and guarantee our freedoms including freedom from terror. And of course it is of utmost importance to strike a balance between security and liberty.

This week I came across a tweet by the British born Isalimist of Pakistani descent Anjem Choudary who regularly encourages his follower to engage in "jihad" online and otherwise. There has been some suggestion that both Rouleau and Zehaf-bibeau were aware of and may have followed the murderous promptings of Choudray. In regard to the killer Rouleau he tweeted "@anjemchoudray the Canadian press try to link brother Abu Ibrahim Al Canadi/Martin 'Ahmed' Rouleau (may Allah grant him jannah) to me." The word "jannah" is alien to the Indian-subcontinent where it is known as "janat"(paradise). For the "believers" a well known Islamist wishing "janat" to the murderer of an innocent unarmed soldier implies approval of the actions of the terrorist Rouleau. Does Britain have a law that criminalises such implicit encouragement of terrorism? Should it or not?

There is so much hate and violence on the internet and otherwise and it is not the exclusive preserve any one group. Right now we are dealing with the Islamist inspired/encouraged violence opposed by the vast majority of the peace loving Muslims. We have had experience with other groups before. We need to be vigilant. We need to engage our young and old in an honest and open debate about these issues in our homes, schools, universities and work places. Our silence stemming from the fear of offending some sensibilities will only exacerbate the situation. The political and public leaders need to lead this debate even as they amend the laws to make us safe from the consequences of this hate: terrorism.