By Brian Brulotte
The terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in Australia shocked a society that, like Canada, views itself as orderly, tolerant, and fundamentally safe. The attack did not occur in a vacuum. It specifically targeted Jewish people, and acknowledging that reality is essential to understanding the nature of the threat. The natural reaction is to see such violence as an aberration, the product of foreign conditions unlikely to take root here. That assumption is comforting. It is also dangerously false.
What occurred at Bondi Beach can happen in Canada. The enabling conditions already exist. They did not emerge suddenly, nor are they the result of a single policy failure. They are the cumulative consequence of choices made over the last several years that have weakened our ability to detect, deter, and confront ideological violence before it manifests in public spaces. Canadians must wake up to the fact that the threat posed by jihadist extremism is here and must be addressed directly and decisively.
One of the most serious failures has been a growing reluctance to speak plainly about threats. Canadian security institutions increasingly operate within a constrained vocabulary, shaped as much by political sensitivities as by operational realities. When analysts and investigators are discouraged from naming ideological motivations with precision, clarity erodes. Threat assessment becomes muddled. The absence of language does not neutralize danger; it merely obscures it. This reluctance appears not only in institutions but also in public commentary, where avoiding clear reference to the Jewish victims and the jihadist ideology behind the Bondi attack further weakens the public’s ability to understand what occurred, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. By softening or sidestepping the ideological nature of the violence, we trade accuracy for discomfort—and in doing so, we undermine the very vigilance that public safety requires.
This hesitation is reinforced by a culture of institutional risk aversion. In recent years, the consequences of acting decisively have come to be perceived as more dangerous than the consequences of inaction. Careers are not jeopardized by failing to prevent an attack that no one officially anticipated. They are jeopardized by taking steps that might later be judged impolite, excessive, or politically inconvenient. Over time, this mindset reshapes organizations. Vigilance gives way to caution. Prevention yields to process.
At the same time, Canada’s intelligence and security capacity has been diluted by misaligned priorities. Resources are finite. When threat identification becomes entangled with symbolic or performative objectives, serious risks compete for attention with abstract ones. Surveillance, human intelligence, and community-level detection all suffer when focus is dispersed. This is not a failure of professionalism. It is a failure of direction.
Social cohesion has also frayed. Canada continues to celebrate diversity, but it has become less confident in articulating a shared civic framework. Common expectations, behavioural standards, and obligations are often discussed hesitantly, if at all. Extremist ideologies flourish in precisely these gaps. They feed on grievance, alienation, and moral ambiguity. Where norms are unclear or unevenly enforced, radicalization finds room to grow. These ideologies are not hypothetical. They include specific, well‑documented movements — including jihadist extremism — that have repeatedly targeted Jewish communities worldwide.
Underlying all of this is a persistent belief in Canadian exceptionalism. We tell ourselves that geography offers protection, that our temperament reduces risk, that our values inoculate us against the pathologies seen elsewhere. Bondi Beach exposes the weakness of that belief. Open societies are not insulated from terrorism. Their openness is frequently what makes them vulnerable.
Prevention does not require abandoning democratic principles. It requires the discipline to apply them honestly. Security institutions must be allowed to analyze threats without linguistic distortion or political filtering. Early intervention must be understood as a responsibility, not a transgression. Public order must be defended with confidence rather than apology. And that confidence begins with precision. If we cannot name the victims or the ideology behind attacks, we cannot meaningfully prepare for or prevent them.
Political leadership matters as well. Citizens take cues from those in authority. When leaders are reluctant to draw lines, institutions hesitate to enforce them. When clarity is replaced by equivocation, deterrence weakens.
Canada must also recover a sense of shared civic purpose. A society that understands its own boundaries is more resilient than one that refuses to define them. Expectations are not instruments of exclusion. They are foundations of trust.
Bondi Beach should not be dismissed as an Australian tragedy. It is a warning to every country that has mistaken goodwill for preparedness. Canada still has time to act.
