I was a teenager in 1989 when Marc Lépine shot and killed 14 women at Montreal’s École Polytechnique while shouting “I hate feminists.” It was clear, even back then, that in addition to murder, he was guilty of an ideologically fuelled act of rage that carried symbolic weight. At the time, there was no official way to categorize his crimes. There is now.
The Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. Surely if the Montreal massacre happened today, it could be categorized as an act of domestic terrorism. But of the roughly 60 terrorism charges the Crown has laid since the law was introduced to the Criminal Code, almost all have been against extremists inspired by al-Qaeda or the Islamic State—none against men who have targeted women.
Then came Oguzhan Sert. He was just 17 when he walked into a Toronto massage parlour in 2020 and killed an employee with a sword. He identified as an incel, an “involuntary celibate,” and advocated violence against women as retribution for his inability to form intimate relationships. In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court found him guilty of terrorism against women. He became the first person in Canada to receive a terror conviction based on an incel-motivated crime.
What does a terror designation mean? Which acts qualify? And what are the consequences of such a label for the criminal—and for society? The writer Lana Hall brilliantly answers all that and more in her story “The Incel Terrorist,” published in the April issue of Maclean’s. Lana has a special interest in this case: she spent five years working in Toronto’s massage parlours. She approached her reporting with empathy for Sert’s victims and the women in that industry who are unfairly condemned for their work. It’s a terrific piece of magazine writing, and I hope you’ll take a look.
—Sarah Fulford, editor-in-chief
