In Canadian Politics, Climate Change, Human Rights, Middle East, National Security

Last month, in a letter to the Hill Times, I responded to an op-ed by Phil Gurski, a former senior strategic analyst with Canada’s spy agency (CSIS), in which Mr. Gurski raised the spectre of potential violence by environmental activists. After the Hill Times published my letter, Mr. Gurski kindly invited me onto his weekly program to debate national security, the threat posed by the fossil fuels industry and terrorism.

In our debate, which Mr. Gurski published today, I argued (starting at 8:58 of the podcast) that one of the greatest threats to Canada’s national security is in fact the fossil fuels industry and that, far from being a threat to national security, those who resist the fossil fuels industry are acting in the national interest.

I also argued that the legislation governing CSIS is broad enough to authorize CSIS to treat the fossil fuels industry as a national security threat, but that the government appointees who manage CSIS have a pro-fossil fuels bias – just like the Liberal and Conservative politicians who appointed them.

Finally, I argued (starting at 25:50 of the podcast) that Western governments and intelligence agencies are ignoring the true causes of terrorism, that there is no military solution to terrorism and that the true solution to terrorism is political in nature.

You can listen to our debate here:

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search

Translate »
Skip to content